Talk-Polywell.org

nferguso wrote:"...Tycho took great measurements, but had a bogus model. It took Kepler 30 years later to fully model Tycho's measurements correctly."

"...A new theory has nothing to do with past experiments, a new theory only relates to new hypothesis and new expreiments. "

Thanks for clearing it all up for me.

To clarify the Tycho/Kepler thing... Tycho had the model first (he wasn't enamored by the Copernican model) and then built the observatory to validate it. He recognized he was not a good enough mathematician to use his observations to validate his model, so he hired Kepler, a formidable mathematician, to crunch the numbers. Tycho knew that Kepler was a Copernican, and their relationship was uneasy, since he kept data from Kepler so Kepler wouldn't use it to prove his own Copernican ideas. It wasn't until after Tycho died that Kepler got full access to the observations and discovered that all four models (Ptolemy's geocentric, Copernicus' heliocentric, Tycho's hybrid geo/heliocentric, and Kepler's own pet variant on Copericus' heliocentric) didn't match the data. They all worked well with the pre-Tycho data, but the increased quality of Tycho's data eliminated all of them. Kepler's new theoretical work on the data led him to posit his "laws", which broke the perfect celestial spheres a major part of all the other theories.

Kepler's "Laws" certainly changed how we viewed the planets, but they weren't fully explained until Newton.

Art Carlson wrote:

Helius wrote:... it's slightly above unity as we know it. Nothing to get excited about ...

A violation of the law of conservation of energy is nothing to get excited about?

Depends on the quality/calibration of the experiments.

It was done with flow calorimetry if I'm not mistaken. At best good to 1% or so. Typically around 5% if the experimenters are not rigorous and steady state is not achieved.

MSimon wrote:

Art Carlson wrote:

Helius wrote:... it's slightly above unity as we know it. Nothing to get excited about ...

A violation of the law of conservation of energy is nothing to get excited about?

Depends on the quality/calibration of the experiments.

It was done with flow calorimetry if I'm not mistaken. At best good to 1% or so. Typically around 5% if the experimenters are not rigorous and steady state is not achieved.

MSimon, Experimental errors do not cut it.

According the the independent report, they obtained better then 160% more energy out they what they put in in one of the runs. It sound like there is some effects that are not explain by the theory. However, they are talking of more then a Kg of material, there might be some unexpected chemistry reactions that they have not considered.

There most be some tantalizing sciences in the background for the old CEO of Westhinghouse to be involved. I do not quite like the reference to strange science at their web site, with very vague explanation of system and how they jump to their theory of new electronic state to explain everything.

The same kind of thing happen when the cold fusion was announced. The experimenters felt the need to explain the effect and jump to the conclusion that fusion was occurring.

I think there are something strange happening here, and it is not experimental errors, but I do not believe in the theory used to explain it.

Jboily wrote:I think there are something strange happening here, and it is not experimental errors, but I do not believe in the theory used to explain it.

That is probably the most charitable thing that can be said.

Art Carlson wrote:

Helius wrote:... it's slightly above unity as we know it. Nothing to get excited about ...

A violation of the law of conservation of energy is nothing to get excited about?

That requires a closed system.

Since all the elements except hydrogen came from fusion in stars light years away, quantum entanglement means there probably aren't any closed systems to be had...

...and I haven't even started on zero point energy...

alexjrgreen wrote:...and I haven't even started on zero point energy...

"Note on the Attraction of Gravitation" in
James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. 155, 1865, pp. 459-512, sec. 82, pp. 492-3
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_4.pdf (pp. 4-5)

"Can the energy density of gravitational field be interpreted as dark energy?"
V. Majerník
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 5130v1.pdf