Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974

Hard to get your head around what they've found but it seems to be the light left over from the Big Bang and thus further evidence that it not only happened by happened in the way hyptotised by Scientists for a long time now.

It must be so rewarding for the Scientists that came up with these theories to see them validated decades later.

Here is a video of the guy who came up with this theory being told he was right all along: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIV...ature=youtu.be

I also found this post on Reddit to better explain why this is so important: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comm...hailed/cg4unam

Apparently if confirmed this will be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of physics. :shocked:

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------

I also think this also suggests our estimates for the age of the universe are more likely...

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Listening to the sound of creationists digging in the sand..;)

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

No that would be the sound of the 'Young Earth-ers'. Us Creationists don't really have a problem with the Big Bang theory.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

This is the second time in a year that a fundamental hypothesis in physics has been proven correct decades later when our ability to look for it has arrived. That's amazing.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

how has it been proven correct? they have found something that they theorise gives evidence that a theory is correct they still could be totally wrong

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

They found exactly what the theory suggested would be there. The thing that had to be there for the big bang expansion theory to occur. They don't think it proves the theory correct by chance, this is exactly what they were looking for.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

but they can not categorically say they have it right they can simply say they think they do

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

It needs to be confirmed first. However like the Higgs Boson this squares a theory. For the inflation theory to be correct the scientists said that these 'gravitation waves' would exist alongside some other things. There was a lot of supporting evidence for the inflation theory but they needed to find that these waves exist, the smoking gun of inflation theory. Presuming there hasn't been a awful mistake they've found it.

Also they don't simply 'think' they have it right. They have evidence to support their hypothesis. It's also hard to doubt them when they said something would be there and then find it is. Their hypothesis is holding up.

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Better explanation here:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-physics-bicep

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Have a read of why the guy mentioned 5 sigma when the door was opened.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

I have no doubt the young earthers will do what they do every time science shines a light on their nonsense and misinterpret the evidence.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

what if there is another explanation for the 'gravitation waves' that they have not found yet?

They thought they knew the shape of the milky way yes the very system we are in tiny in comparison to the universe until they found out they were actually incorrect and only found out something this close because the voyager probes shown them

I think I will stick to my skepticism seeing as they can get something wrong this near yet they say they know something millions of times further away

Edit not the milky way our solar system

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Don't suppose there is much difference between "let their be light" and a big bang really.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

:tu:

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Not sure exactly to what you're referring with regards to the shape of the solar system.

The Scientists seem pretty sure and they've been working on this for several years not content with the theory until they found these waves. The level of effort they've gone to prove this theory instead of just accepting all the other evidence should inspire confidence. You can stick to your skepticism but it appears to be based on nothing but a desire to question everything they do without evidence to merit your scepticism. They have gone to extraordinary endeavours to back up their claims whereas yours appear to be based on the fact that sometimes scientists are wrong. I would suggest that we go with the state of science which will evolve when they find out more information.

The alternative is to reject all scientific advances because there could always be another explanation for what we think we already know. Matter and concepts which we currently cannot detect or grasp. Things which exist outside our current understanding of the world. That train of thought heads into madness and the questioning of everything we currently know. Do we even exist? and so on.

So the best we can do to work within the parameters we have and the world as we can measure it. It's done well enough to help us invent air flight, space travel, nuclear technology and computing. So until such time as it's proven otherwise, it would seem the inflation theory is correct. It was hypothesised almost 100 years ago. Evidence has increasingly mounted in it's favour. Now they've found the final part of the jigsaw.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

The thing is Damien science have often said something is such and such a way only for years later to find it disproved. The human race I find a very arrogant species we have only traveled to the moon and we have probes that have only left this solar system yet by having devices that capture light that has traveled for many many years radiation and sound waves we try to explain everything.

They can say that x + y = reality but they can never ever be 100% sure on anything that they can not actually witness

As it stand at this moment they are trying to tell us how our universe began but they can not find a plane on our own planet lol

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

But that doesn't get us anywhere. It's not a constructive way to look at the world. Even the things we can witness might not be true, it's not uncommon for people to fabricate experiences instead their own heads after all. You might as well believe in nothing if you work on the assumption that science is wrong.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

I can live with that Damien :)

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Broadly speaking, science goes on the notion that it allows itself to be disproven at any time by stronger evidence. As you say this new revelation has been theorised for many years and could only be proven 100% if someone was able to view and test these 'waves'. Instead the evidence and research in their favour is very strong.

Going on what I've read about it, if the evidence was put before some kind of 'law court', it would be considered one of the biggest 'cut and dried' cases ever.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

It would seem so.

Of course it could be disproven at any time and many scientists will be trying to do so as we speak. The Higgs Boson is still being verified but it would require something extraordinary for those results to be invalidated at this point. As we learn more we may adjust what we think we already know.

The thing is these theories often led to us being able to do something practical with the knowledge. Our understanding of physics has led us to invent air travel, cars, nuclear energy and more. So even if we've made a fundamental mistake somewhere we must be correct about the aspects of how these concepts relate to each other.

As I said we can only measure and observe the world we see and work within the parameters given. The idea there could be something outside of that which would invalidate it (other dimensions, other forces, God) is useless to science as we can't test it. So it's an irrelevance as far as scientific research goes....

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

And knowing that validates my wish not to accept the information as fact :)

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

As I said you might as well apply this notion to everything including your very existence. Everything you know could be wrong. It's a situation where you're not sure of anything, don't really know anything, a permanent state of equivocacy. Which is fine but for myself I don't see it as a constructive way to approach the world.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

I do see it that way and I am comfortable in such. Many year ago whilst tripping my tits off me and a group of fellow trippers were discussing life the universe and everything and we come to the conclusion that we may have at some point found the answer to the meaning of life but we can not possibly know if we had so what is the point in worrying about it. I did used to love the LSD lol

After all it all just adds up to 42

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

One problem here is the philosophical one. People are so attached to their belief that discussions fall into name calling and other childish behaviour rather than discussing what is presented and how to interpret it.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Highly recommend a read of this website.

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Being philosophical a moment everyone has a different idea of the meaning of their life and that's the only meaning of life that matters.

This kind of research is incredibly important; stealing from a couple of quotes we are the universe made conscious and through us it seeks to understand itself. We get things wrong, but that's not a bad thing, that's science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

I agree with what you say totally and I for one choose to be skeptical because of the very fact science is often proven wrong later.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Well it would be disproved by further science which means you can't really believe that they've proven it wrong because that might be wrong as well.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

exactly

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Bit of a circular process isn't it?

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

yeah and that is why I choose to be a skeptic

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

And me ;)

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Is accepting what is bound to be later proven as non-truth, as truth, really constructive though? Science is about learning, not actual truth. If you want truth, ask God after this life has finished with you.
We can accept current (pre-sell by date, check the label) knowledge as being closer to the truth based on our limited understanding. We'd have to be quite arrogant to think 2014 knowledge isn't going to be overturned later, as the means to do so remains a fundamental tenet in science. That is, it may well be overturned and science will remain receptive to new competing explanations. To think otherwise, is non constructive, and such thinking just leads researchers to digging in their heels and defending their, however obsolete, theories and work. Everything we believe of the universe could be wrong, our theories are the best we have so far, with perhaps thousands of years of scientific discoveries still ahead, but that's the best we've got.
Although much if not all current understanding could have better explanations, we will need to prove it with data as that is the only way we have to learn and understand the universe.

I don't believe scientists are true scientists at all, merely anthropological apes (however turbocharged their subconscious brains may be) trying to be science-like, often failing miserably. What has been described as science by some posters in this thread is in my view, an abstract concept. A nice ideology, but you'd be surprised just how few "scientists" are truly objective and receptive to critique of their work.
For this reason, I will aptly refer to them as science manfolk.

It wasn't so long ago, that science manfolk proclaimed that all matter was made of indivisible particles that were infinitely strong and unbreakable, thus it was only fitting that they should name these particles after the Greek work atomos meaning "can't be split". We all know how that ended, a bit of a bang...
On the subject of friction, many science manfolk had a go at cracking what could hardly be described as a technical problem of stellar proportions.
A science manperson named Johann Bercher proclaimed that heat was inside materials that was released when burned. This theory didn't last long and was soon disproved.
In 1761 Joseph Black, said heat from friction was the result of heat combining with matter and becoming "latent". Hence the thermodynamic terminology that persists to this day, heat required to boil water into steam is "latent heat of vaporization" (conversely the same amount of energy is released/removed when the vapor condenses into liquid), the heat required to melt ice is the "latent heat of crystallization" (conversely the same heat is released/removed when ice is formed).
Joseph Black's theory of friction was later proved wrong also.
Then Antoine Lavoisier published his Caloric Theory that described heat as being a liquid called "caloric" that flowed from hotter bodies to cooler ones. One can see the logic there, but completely wrong of course. And yes, that's the origin of the term calorie that persists today - yet another scar of science manfolk wrongness that will probably be around forever.
It wasn't until the kinetic theory of gases that science finally had something that made some actual sense.

Antoine Lavoisier, widely revered today as the "Father of Modern Chemistry" when questioned about the existence of meteorites, famously proclaimed that "Rocks don't fall from the sky, because there are no rocks in the sky." This was after several rocks reportedly fell from the sky and landed in a French farmers field.
For centuries, science manfolk widely proclaimed that any manned flight was impossible.
Then the Montgolfier Brothers pioneered the new technology of hot air ballooning, not to be out done, the science manfolk said, okay fine yes that's possible (with a James Randi grin perhaps) but powered manned flight isn't possible. A leading scientist of the day, equipped with the best education that manfolk science had to offer in the day, proclaimed he would succeed in his quest to achieve powered flight. His name was Samuel Pierpont Langley, physicist and astronomer, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, a true science manperson of his day.
After having been given a $50,000 grant and building many prototypes, he built one that worked, a small model (presumably balsa wood). It glided nicely, Samuel was pleased.
Having found his working design, he then scaled it up to be large enough to carry a human and an engine. Upon launching his "flyer", it quite rightly crashed into the sea, a complete abortion. Every engineer knows that dimensions don't scale linearly, I suppose someone forgot to tell him.
Several days later a couple of bicycle builders flew their flyer and gained notoriety when they became acknowledged as the world's first to pilot a powered glider at Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course we know them today as the Wright brothers.

Now I could go on and on. Just pick any specific area of science, and look up the development. We today, are still very much in development as we've only just scratched the surface of science. However, science manfolk don't like to think their life's work is merely scratching the surface of anything so right through the centuries they've always believed they have truth. It's what drives them. Science manfolk have always believed they have the same understanding of the universe, as they do right now. Odd that, I think that says far more about human psychology than it does actual science or how much we really know about the universe.

Furthermore, whenever the wrong scientific theories remained, early pioneers who tried to get support for their better hypothesis, were widely ridiculed by scientists.
Even the great Nikola Tesla had a really hard time trying to get sense through to science manfolk of the day, even when the technological deck was highly stacked in his favor. AC vs DC, was a no-brainer, really - or at least so you'd think. Science manfolk widely ridiculed and dismissed arguably one of the most brilliant engineers in history, as a crackpot and crank. But Nikola did get results, and results don't lie. Luckily he had the means and finance to build his inventions.
History is littered with similar examples.
Science pioneers have always had to fight to get their ideas or inventions taken seriously. Any "science" that is presented that doesn't tie in with the "scientific expectations of the era" is outright attacked. Having such a bias is not true science in my view, reeks of what science manfolk badge themselves as standing to oppose, but in practise they often don't. Even new theories such as "morphic resonance" that are interesting explanations of scientific observation, are outright ridiculed because it sounds a little like the paranormal boogieman that one dares not touch, he he/she is to be respected by fellow science folk.

Every single major invention/discovery wasn't accepted by the peer science manfolk at the time. They didn't just say they weren't convinced, they outright attacked those claiming to have discovered something, and only accepting their ideas not when they'd been proven, but when they could be denied no longer.
In effect, modern science has arguably been dragged by an intellectual elite, kicking and screaming, into the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

It should be clear by now, that sheer ignorance and academia can often go hand in hand. Most science manfolk are academics, not "out of the box" thinkers with inventive minds. Hence why inventors and engineers, not academics, have invented nearly everything we have today.

The question isn't why doubt science because it could be wrong, rather history has shown that it almost always is, just not obvious to everyone at the time. I challenge anyone to show me a single example where science manfolk have been confronted with a new observation, and then went on to develop a true explanation on the first, second, third or even the fourth try?
Good luck.

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------

For a more recent example of research dismissed by scientists as not fitting in with the "scientific expectations of the era", consider the example of cold fusion.

Remember cold fusion? Gained notoriety in 1989 when brought to the worlds attention by two of the world's leading electrochemists Martin Fleishchmann and Stanely Pons. Later found to be unproven.
Ridiculed and jeered at by science folk ever since. Snake oil, touch it and your career in science might just be over.
Remember?

Well, have a read here
The E-Cat is Andrea Rossi's cold fusion reactor. Andrea has a rather dubious past, but his work has attracted a lot of interest, though not from mainstream science.
Research has continued into cold fusion, and some physicists are saying its a genuine phenomenon, just one that's still not understood. If true its the scientific breakthrough of the century. What is being claimed, is that nickel catalyst is being transmuted into copper, through an unknown nuclear process (involving H+ protons) resulting in the release of megawatts of heat, and causing the formation of copper inside the reactor (allegedly).

If this turns out to be true, then this will be quite an embarrassment for the established scientific "method", but an exciting breakthrough nonetheless.

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------

Just having a read, it now seems that Andrea Rossi has recently sold the intellectual property rights to a US energy firm.
http://www.anthropower.com/nuclear-news-5

I wonder if they'll actually develop it or just sit on it?

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

The guy's secrecy is the rub. A single non-peer-reviewed paper, refusal to allow independent 3rd party testing beyond this, and then results from a test where he allowed the end products to be analysed which were dubious to say the least.

Notable that in the academic paper published the end products were not analysed. Wonder why.

EDIT: Another link - http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364v1.pdf Noteworthy that this 'third party testing' was done under conditions carefully controlled by Rossi and some of these 'third parties' were involved with the project before this, hence not independent.

I'd say the fact the scientific concensus is against this is an indication of how robust the scientific method is. Until this guy starts playing by the rules, allowing proper independent testing and appropriate review which complies with frankly basic scientific standards he'll continue to be reviewed with suspicion. Fantastic claims require a fantastically high standard of evidence and what has been presented so far hasn't come close.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Yes, I certainly agree there. That's the main complaint.
Perfectly understandable, but then I think so is the secrecy to a point. If you'd spent many many years and a lot of money developing something as an investment, you'd probably want to keep it secret too. Well, I think I might anyway. If the secrecy went too far, and was irrational then I'd become suspicious.

Rossi has a dilemma. On one hand (assuming he's genuine for a moment) he has some gimmick, a twist on the original cold fusion that he's developed.
How does he prove it to gain recognition (and increased its value to investors or potential buyers) without giving it away and rendering it useless as a product to control and sell? If you can't control it, then someone else can come along, perhaps change a little thing or two, or even improve it and then have control over the intellectual property rights. It depends on the nature of the E-Cat, which we don't (yet) know.

The way to do that, is not give away the design, but allow independent scientists to measure the energy coming in, and the energy leaving.
If the energy being released is higher than what can be accountable from the chemicals (namely hydrogen) being added, then he's proved there's something new going on there as that should be technically impossible. This appears to be what he's attempted to do. Whether it's a hoax or not is uncertain, but it appears he's managed to convince a number of physicists that there is a nuclear process occurring here. If its a hoax, then its an impressive one.

The US energy firm that's purchased the intellectual property rights I'm sure wouldn't have done so unless he convinced their best technical experts that he had the goods.

Personally, I don't see why the fuss has lasted so long. Its really not that difficult to measure the energy coming in and leaving in order to establish thermodynamic overunity (implying nuclear or other process). Back when I worked in nuclear fusion research (hot fusion) we used custom built calorimeters for measuring the tiniest of temperature fluctuations. The units we had were very large, like large heavily insulated coolers, used peltier junctions to cool the sample to near absolute zero, and to completely regulate the internal temperature and it was so sensitive it could measure the heat released from tritium (3H) disintegration(s) to Helium-3 and an electron (per disintegration). The heat is so miniscule there is no other way to measure it, but it was measurable.

Mass flow meters can extremely accurately measure the hydrogen mass flow , and the water boiled into steam is an easy and cheap indicator. Any electrical power being fed/consumed is easily measured.

The science blog link was an interesting read. What Ethan has posted there, is deliver conventional fusion science; repulsive forces between atomic nuclei, temperatures involved in nuclear fusion, no sign of hydrogen isotopes adding to nickel in the stars, etc etc. This is conventional thinking, however what's claimed (though not yet proven) is that there is something *new* going on. The fact that we don't have deuterium and tritium fusing at 120,000,000 deg C shouldn't be a surprise as this is not what's claimed. I think he's going a little far by saying "Right here, this very site claimed that these results were probably faked, and now we’re going to show you the physics of why these claims are definitely untrue."

Yes, as applies for conventional hot fusion, but its not and we don't really know whats supposed to be going on here because we haven't been told. All I can say is that something very clever would have to be going on to fool physicists who've tested the machine.

As an analogy, there is the example of rogue waves. Reported by sailors for centuries, denied by science up until the mid 1990's when the Draupner platform in the North Sea *measured* the Draupner Wave a massive 84 ft wave of sorts. Scientists described such waves as "1 in 10,000 year events", of course they were working on the linear model. What was claimed was *new*, a different phenomenon. Since the 1990's satellites have measured wave heights and its been found that rogue waves are everywhere. Dozens around the world at any given time. So the sailors have been right all along. Just now and again, a ship is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If this hadn't been shown and now been known to be true, I or any of us no doubt, could go on a science blog and regurgitate the linear wave model after stating "Right here, this very site claimed that these results were probably faked, and now we’re going to show you the physics of why these claims are definitely untrue.". So I take such statements with a pinch of salt, whenever dealing with potentially new science.

I can't say I'm a believer in cold fusion, I can't be as I haven't examined this machine myself. But I'm still cautiously sitting on the bench. Though, I haven't seen anything that disproves it either.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Agreed, though as per the onus is on the people making the claims to produce the evidence for them. Evidence for hot fusion is well documented.

The sloppy nature of the 'evidence' provided alongside the lack of independence evident from a number of those involved in the single published 'third party' paper doesn't bode well.

I would be ecstatic if it were the case, it'd be an incredibly good thing for the world, however given the controversy could be over in a heartbeat but Rossi seems to have ensured that no equivocal testing has been done it has to be viewed with skepticism at a bare minimum.

The simplest of tricks could have been performed to achieve his results in at least some cases - wiring the power input so that 3kW is being drawn from an unmeasured earth wire while measuring neutral and live.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Yes I agree, and if cold fusion turns out to be genuine it would be tremendously exciting indeed. It would turn the world of physics on its head.

Here's a 60 Minutes report on cold fusion you might find interesting.
Cold Fusion Hot Again

Despite the anecdotal evidence there and the respectable people lending support, old school physicists still won't take it seriously enough for a thorough investigation. As it says in the video, measuring electricity going into the apparatus is one of the most simple calculations.
Just as an example, I have a cheapo AC clamp meter (~£50), it will clamp over the live AC input and will tell me precisely what the electrical current is (by measuring the alternating magnetic field strength) of any AC cable. Multiply that value by the rms voltage and you have the total power being supplied. Or to be anal, measure the neutral also and subtract it from the live power value to yield the true energy consumption. Its not exactly rocket science, and I can hardly believe so many laboratories can be getting this wrong, and they must be getting it wrong if cold fusion/nuclear effect isn't a real phenomenon.

---------- Post added at 22:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------

A rather lighthearted take on cold fusion:
MIT Cold Fusion - The Revolution Has Begun !

Interesting that even MIT professors are studying this, and claiming it works.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Cold fusion reactor verified by independent researchers.
Article is dated 9th Oct, but have only just seen it this evening.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...#disqus_thread

As mentioned in the article, the final report was careful not to use LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) as the source of the excess energy, but with hydrogen loaded nickel as fuel, LENR of some form seems by far the most logical explanation. Especially considering that the energy levels recorded far exceed that possible from any chemical source. This leaves a nuclear source, or else something even more far fetched !

If this is true, I can't see why this isn't front page news.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

here is your answer(s)....

imagine the loss in oil revenue. the devaluation of the petro-dollar would collapse the US economy within a very short time frame if the E-Cat became global!

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

If I were the main scientist. I'd walk to work. or get the brakes checked on my car.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Easy.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ban...d-624f15676f96

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Ignitionnet mate, I'm only 1 minute into reading that "rebuttal" and I've already spotted a half dozen errors, I have no idea who the author is but the author is clearly an idiot, and I really can't be bothered to read the rest. But I'll make an effort.

I hope I'm not coming across a bit moody, as an engineer I have very little time for these know-nothing know it all pseudo-academic types (plenty of them in the science sector btw), plus I haven't yet had my morning caffeine uptake.

Okay, here goes.

1) Self-sustaining energy output, without a hookup to an external energy source.

"Three years ago, nuclear physicist Peter Thieberger diagrammed out a very simple circuit that could fool any device designed to measure the current through a wire, that I present to you below."


This point is laughable. What the author here calls a "clever circuit" is actually just common sense and common knowledge to those who understand electrics (like me). I have one of these clamp ac meters, and it clearly says on the box that only one wire must be clamped at a time otherwise the signals will cancel out, its in the instructions. There is practically zero probability a gimmick like this would fool these professional researchers. This guy must be on drugs to refer to this as a "clever circuit" and even reference its designer...jeez.

Its also completely unreasonable to expect a reaction to be completely self sustaining with no power input whatsoever, I'm nearly lost for words on that point.

2) A quality, closed-calorimeter measurement of the heat output.

Oh my God this guy is an idiot.
I have a fair amount of experience of calorimeters from my time working in the hot nuclear fusion sector, and this is not how they are used. Yes, they can detect and measure the total heat input/output (which is where the author was coming from), but they are used to detect small changes, and what difference does it make since the author clearly thinks far more electricity is going in that is being measured, so whats the point?

There is no dispute as to whether or not there is more power coming out than electrical power measured going in. If it were borderline, then in that case it might be worth spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars constructing a custom calorimeter capable of measuring larger amounts of power. However....

The author could do with some schooling himself on some basic mathematics. 1.5 megawatt hours is 5400000000 Joules. This is enough energy to boil nearly 2 and half TONNES of water into steam (2391.5 kg). Calorimetry? This guys on crack.

Checking for hidden wires? No mate, just check their electric bill.

Granted the reaction was run for 32 days, and that timescale could have been reduced, but to be frank, they would need to run the reaction for a long while to build up data and demonstrate consistent running.

I've just glanced over points 3, 4, and 5. And oh dear, its just more of the same (obvious mistakes, assumptions galore), I've better things to do than tear apart idiotic "skeptic" posts on the internet.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Checking the electric bill wasn't done as part of the experiment sadly.

I am not qualified to comment further on points 1 and 2.

I'm not sure what the assumption is in noting that no alpha, beta or gamma radiation was found.

Point 4 seems reasonable - conspicuous by its absence is the breakdown of the isotopes of copper produced.

These two are linked - either this is working by some entirely new physics, not fusion, or there's something up but the point stands. The lack of discussion of copper byproducts is a huge omission. Given this process allegedly results in copper being produced why isn't this in the results? It's easy for the cynic to think that it's because the copper produced matches natural copper in its isotope ratio and, hence, is an additive not produced by the reaction.

Point 5 likewise - these aren't independent scientists and Rossi was actively involved in the experiments.

I would love to believe that this is doable but, again, a fatally flawed experiment with too much missing. I can't see this getting past peer review for a moment.

This needs doing by genuinely independent scientists with Rossi not involved in any way and, indeed, the electricity bill being measured along with all products of the reaction detailed.

EDIT: Last time Rossi gave his products for analysis it didn't go well - https://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/...r-new-physics/

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

It will be buried soon enough.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Lots to say, but unfortunately I've got a full schedule today so I won't really be able to properly reply until I get time this evening.

I do agree that Rossi will need to be absent for proper scientific analysis but this is a business venture, and the tech is proprietary. Either he or a trusted associate would need to remain present to protect his interests.
To say that Rossi but absolutely be vacant whilst we operate and test his brainchild, is a bit like demanding that Uri Geller be vacant whilst we test his psychic powers. We can prove a psychic or inventor guilty of fraud even with their presence.

I did read somewhere however, that Rossi was not present for the power measurements. Which would be very significant, if true. Considering that the power measurement (particularly the electrical power going in) is the most critical factor here.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Well Rossi would certainly be familiar with being found guilty of fraud given his criminal record.

Looking at his history it looks horribly like this is the latest in his collection of scams.

I don't demand he's vacant, merely that he doesn't get to handle either the reactant or the products, and that a full analysis is done on both with complete breakdown of components and isotopes.

The one time that a complete breakdown of products was done Rossi claimed later that he'd informed the scientist in question that it had been contaminated. Said scientist made no reference to this contamination at any point and couldn't argue the point as he was dead. Worse still the part that the results questioned was exactly the part missing from the most recent experiment - copper quantity and isotope ratio.

This shouldn't be a problem, should it? Indeed proper, peer-reviewed experimental evidence may greatly assist his attempts to patent the technology.

This guy seems like a serial scammer, the E-Cat his latest scam. Really bad news for all those genuinely pursuing LENR as a technology.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

It could easily be checked retrospectively, such information is held by the power companies.

I had interpreted your "Easy." statement as such that you were vouching for that article. Fair enough.

I have good advice here - and you'll read it from some others on the internet too (and lots of nonsense in between). Just forget about all that other nuke stuff. All that matters in this LENR claim, is what is going in, and what is coming out - everything else is just distraction. Energy balance only.
It might take the next 100 years to figure out what is really going on, but the first thing is to determine if anything actually is going on.

Our aim is to generate energy, its precise mechanism of generation (LENR or other new source) is completely moot. We just want the power, and first we need to determine if there is another source of power not being applied (via fuel or electricity).

If some kind of fusion is occurring, then clearly it isn't hot fusion (as it can't be as we'd need over 100,000,000 deg C to even start thinking hot fusion) so one has to let go of the circumstances and nature of hot fusion. Additionally, if the mechanism is fusion, then the existing fusion models are clearly wrong or incomplete. This includes all (hot fusion) references to alpha, beta and particularly gamma radiation.

In science, observation trumps theory. Theory exists to be disproved and replaced by more refined theories at a later date. Its inevitable, especially for a civilization (I use the term loosely) that is really only just getting started in science.

The problem with a lot of academics in science, is that they are often old, and too set in their ways - they are not "out of the box" type lateral thinkers.
A good scientist should always investigate claims, not sneer at and deride and attempt to label other people with new ideas as crackpots.

They did this to many notable people in history, and the so-called scientists were wrong, such was the case with Nikola Tesla and many other successful inventors.

All hot fusion references to Rossi's machine amount to nothing more than an unnecessary side show, a distraction from the only important aspects of this over unity claim.

I'd say that's possibly the quickest, surefire way to lose your technology to a competitor.

His work is still in the development stage, and as long as he can continue to develop his work, he probably doesn't really care too much what you, myself and many others think. There is no real rush, is there from his point of view?

Rossi's past is old news, it was the first thing that came up in discussions when he first announced his e-cat. A quick google will bring it all up.

He's a businessman, not a scientist. Plenty of businessmen who have a chequered history are not necessarily serial scammers. Thomas Edison was known to have scammed people (again, a businessman rather than inventor) but he is remembered for inventing many many genuine things.

I can't comment much on Rossi's business history, just the evidence we've already seen.

He's had his work independently verified. The critique I've read (so far) of that is just silly, bordering on the irrational.
Its one thing to be critical, its expected of course. Its completely another to consider everyone else involved in LENR research to be complete idiots and overlooking obvious details, whilst not even questioning one's own critique whilst making some rather obvious blunders in said critique....(in reference to my earlier critique of the rebuttal..)

This LENR claim is not just Rossi's work. There are scientists all over the world looking at this and claiming positive results.

Even NASA has said they've had good results from LENR technology.
MIT physics research students have said so as well, and many many others.

Top of the google results:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.co...ion-folly.html
"NASA's Cold Fusion Folly
I am sad - horrified really - to learn that some NASA scientists have caught cold fusion madness."

Of course NASA has caught cold fusion madness, after all they're just those silly people who put man on the moon...c'mon we all know the moon's made of cheese, right?

I'm still not saying the results are definitely LENR (as I've never worked on such experiments, not yet anyway). But these people can't all be that stupid. There does seem to be some really smart people who are claiming to have measured over-unity with LENR type apparatuses. Something, I believe, is going on - exactly what it is remains to be proven. Either way, I'm still intrigued. :)

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

He's trying to sell said work, indeed apparently tried giving a 1MW unit away in June of 2013. Seems no-one qualified - convenient.

The product has allegedly been available since November 2013, zero sales.

Here's hoping it progresses though. Fusion is our only viable long-term power source unless we can work out how to store solar.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

Me too, and more so thanks to the preceding exchange of posts. Thanks both.

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

I didn't do much - thank Sparkle. It's a genuine pleasure being educated by someone with experience in a field, always :)

Re: Scientists find 'marker' left by Big Bang
 

+1