Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 101
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    Just how do you justify making this claim? From what experience or knowledge of experience do you make this claim from?
    I'm really smart.

  2. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    Little black holes are good. Big black holes are not. Mind you little and big are both relative.
    According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects.
    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html

    Now a relatively large black hole.



    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/un...le_big_2_3.jpg

  3. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,945
    All theory, just about the same as any other theory throughout history. It could be, it might not be....maybe.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  4. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    I don't have time to read any of this site, but isn't this the circular collision machine that was feared might create a black hole until it was tested last year?
    Nope. You are thinking of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This is a very large accelerator that slams particles into each other at high energy and creates new particles in the process.

    ITER is a fusion reactor (works like the sun or any star), where you fuse light atoms together and create heavier atoms (+ energy) in the process. It is essentially the opposite of the current nuclear reactors (fission) where heavy isotopes are split into smaller ones. The trick with fusion has been:

    1. get enough energy into the system to get it going
    2. control the plasma one you got it started

    Since we don't have the extreme gravitational forces that you would find in the center of the sun, we need even higher temperature than the center of the sun to get this to work on Earth. The plasma in ITER is projected to be ~150 million degrees C (~270 million degrees F). As you can imagine, we have no materials that can withstand these temperatures. You have to use magnetic fields to control the plasma to keep it from touching anything.

    All of the heat generated has to be removed and dumped to the environment, since none is being used to generate electricity. It's going to take a fairly complex cooling system to cool the inner panels and get the heat out of there.

  5. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    All theory, just about the same as any other theory throughout history. It could be, it might not be....maybe.
    Not quite.

    I suppose that after years of trying to explain to you the difference between "theory" used in the vernacular and it being used as a scientific term, I should probably just give up on it. Clearly you don't get it and never will.

    Are there speculative theories? Yes. But that's because whole branches of science are, in some cases and by necessity, speculative. Some branches of science are not speculative.

    So, broad brush doesn't work here, sorry.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,945
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Not quite.

    I suppose that after years of trying to explain to you the difference between "theory" used in the vernacular and it being used as a scientific term, I should probably just give up on it. Clearly you don't get it and never will.

    Are there speculative theories? Yes. But that's because whole branches of science are, in some cases and by necessity, speculative. Some branches of science are not speculative.

    So, broad brush doesn't work here, sorry.
    Seems to me that you just used a broad brush to whitewash what I stated about cold fussion still being "scientific theory". In other words, we have not in any way, shape or form been able to produce excess energy from cold fussion but still hold to a theoretical belief that it can be done.

    You really are a boor when you come off with your high and mighty notion that you are so much more intellectual then others. If you really believed that, you would not bother responding to Cretans such as I. So, it is evident that you only do so to inflate your own ego, which by now should be reaching obessity.

    Now! Can you teach me something or not? Do you have something to add to data that has been mentioned or not? If not, thanks for stopping by in a failed attempt to belittle others with your self imposed superiority.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  7. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,945
    Quote Originally Posted by KCA View Post
    Nope. You are thinking of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This is a very large accelerator that slams particles into each other at high energy and creates new particles in the process.

    ITER is a fusion reactor (works like the sun or any star), where you fuse light atoms together and create heavier atoms (+ energy) in the process. It is essentially the opposite of the current nuclear reactors (fission) where heavy isotopes are split into smaller ones. The trick with fusion has been:

    1. get enough energy into the system to get it going
    2. control the plasma one you got it started

    Since we don't have the extreme gravitational forces that you would find in the center of the sun, we need even higher temperature than the center of the sun to get this to work on Earth. The plasma in ITER is projected to be ~150 million degrees C (~270 million degrees F). As you can imagine, we have no materials that can withstand these temperatures. You have to use magnetic fields to control the plasma to keep it from touching anything.

    All of the heat generated has to be removed and dumped to the environment, since none is being used to generate electricity. It's going to take a fairly complex cooling system to cool the inner panels and get the heat out of there.
    That's the one I am thinking about. I will have more time this weekend to look into the ITER fussion reactor you posted about. Thanks.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  8. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    Seems to me that you just used a broad brush to whitewash what I stated about cold fussion still being "scientific theory". In other words, we have not in any way, shape or form been able to produce excess energy from cold fussion but still hold to a theoretical belief that it can be done.

    You really are a boor when you come off with your high and mighty notion that you are so much more intellectual then others. If you really believed that, you would not bother responding to Cretans such as I. So, it is evident that you only do so to inflate your own ego, which by now should be reaching obessity.

    Now! Can you teach me something or not? Do you have something to add to data that has been mentioned or not? If not, thanks for stopping by in a failed attempt to belittle others with your self imposed superiority.
    As usual you have completely missed the point. I was not referring specifically to cold fusion, but rather your mostly inaccurate view of what a scientific theory actually is.

    The point being, of course, that in science, the word "theory" does not necessarily suggest a tentative stance. That's all.

    Of course I can't learn you anything because if you're not getting it by now, I'm not sure when and if you will.

    Sorry if I come off a boorish, Robo, but this is a rather simple concept. You don't need to be a mensa member to get it.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  9. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,945
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    As usual you have completely missed the point. I was not referring specifically to cold fusion, but rather your mostly inaccurate view of what a scientific theory actually is.

    The point being, of course, that in science, the word "theory" does not necessarily suggest a tentative stance. That's all.

    Of course I can't learn you anything because if you're not getting it by now, I'm not sure when and if you will.

    Sorry if I come off a boorish, Robo, but this is a rather simple concept. You don't need to be a mensa member to get it.
    I got your point perfectly. You wanted to make a point that had nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. You wanted to make a disparraging comment about how you think of me.

    Well, this thread is not about how you think of me. It is not about me at all. At the moment, it is about cold fussion. I am learning a lot from others. I am learning nothing from your posts. Therefore, you are a boor.

    I would not be offended if you want to start another thread about how stupid you think I am. It is a bit annoying for you to interrupt this conversation with your obsession of my lack of intellect however.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  10. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    I got your point perfectly. You wanted to make a point that had nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. You wanted to make a disparraging comment about how you think of me.

    Well, this thread is not about how you think of me. It is not about me at all. At the moment, it is about cold fussion. I am learning a lot from others. I am learning nothing from your posts. Therefore, you are a boor.

    I would not be offended if you want to start another thread about how stupid you think I am. It is a bit annoying for you to interrupt this conversation with your obsession of my lack of intellect however.
    Well, I think you have it all wrong, Robo. If I didn't think you were smart, why bother attempting to explain something to you?

    No offense was intended nor was my comment meant to be any sort of attack.

    It has everything to do with what you are discussing. Rather hard to discuss science without an understanding that a theory is not necessarily tentative.

    There never was a theory of cold fusion, really, just a bold unsubstantiated claim. All well and good on that point. But sometimes in ARP, we make statements that are related to the discussion at hand if not necessarily spot on the topic.

    In order to discuss science and its theories it is really useful to understand some things.

    Indeed, I was responding to your comment that had you and Printer talking about black holes. Why didn't you ask Printer what black holes have to do with cold fusion?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  11. #63
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,574
    A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

    A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]

    In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


    All theory, just about the same as any other theory throughout history. It could be, it might not be....maybe.
    This statement does not apply to scientific theory.

    Disclaimer: This point of clarification is not made by me for the sake of insult, intimidation, nor the arrogant dissemination of highfalutin hot air. It is merely meant to correct a misleading statement.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  12. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,945
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Well, I think you have it all wrong, Robo. If I didn't think you were smart, why bother attempting to explain something to you?

    No offense was intended nor was my comment meant to be any sort of attack.

    It has everything to do with what you are discussing. Rather hard to discuss science without an understanding that a theory is not necessarily tentative.
    Ah, I definitely did misunderstand your comments that if I don't understand what you have been telling me by now that I would never be able to understand them as your stating I am of limited intellect. How could I ever have come to such a conclusion? [QUOTE]


    There never was a theory of cold fusion, really, just a bold unsubstantiated claim. All well and good on that point. But sometimes in ARP, we make statements that are related to the discussion at hand if not necessarily spot on the topic.

    Really? I am surprised to hear that there never was a theory of cold fusion. Am I just confused when I read things like; "But why the cold fusion theorists do not develop a new theory ....." ? from sites such as; http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_theories or "Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine
    by Julian Schwinger at http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemag...colfusthe.html or even; "Cold Fusion Experiments and Theory" here; http://www.coldfusionenergyscience.com/ ?


    In order to discuss science and its theories it is really useful to understand some things.
    Things that I am not able to understand?


    Indeed, I was responding to your comment that had you and Printer talking about black holes. Why didn't you ask Printer what black holes have to do with cold fusion?
    Now you want to control what questions I ask of different posters? Am I not even intelligent enough to converse with others properly, in your opinion?

    Really scrog, what is your purpose for posting on this thread? Do you have something that I can learn from?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  13. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    Ah, I definitely did misunderstand your comments that if I don't understand what you have been telling me by now that I would never be able to understand them as your stating I am of limited intellect. How could I ever have come to such a conclusion?

    There never was a theory of cold fusion, really, just a bold unsubstantiated claim. All well and good on that point. But sometimes in ARP, we make statements that are related to the discussion at hand if not necessarily spot on the topic.

    Really? I am surprised to hear that there never was a theory of cold fusion. Am I just confused when I read things like; "But why the cold fusion theorists do not develop a new theory ....." ? from sites such as; http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_theories or "Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine
    by Julian Schwinger at http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemag...colfusthe.html or even; "Cold Fusion Experiments and Theory" here; http://www.coldfusionenergyscience.com/ ? Things that I am not able to understand?
    Now you want to control what questions I ask of different posters? Am I not even intelligent enough to converse with others properly, in your opinion?

    Really scrog, what is your purpose for posting on this thread? Do you have something that I can learn from?
    Ok, Robo, tell you what. Never mind.

    Please continue your wildly misleading commentary for the amusement of all.

    Carry on.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event