It is not the best example, one could object that MySQL was bought to be eventually snuffed.
Actually, that's just part of the same argument. Open source has no way to snuff programs. They're just picked up by others and carried on.
And in fact, that's what happened to MySQL. Many -- possibly even a majority by now -- webhosts have replaced MySQL with MariaDB, and hardly anybody even notices. MariaDB is a fork of the pre-Oracle, open-source MySQL. So if Oracle was really trying to kill it, they failed. It lives on, newer and in many ways better, just under a different name.
On the other hand this highlights the very problem with non-free software. All considerations, including security, are secondary to the corporation's mission. So, there needs to be free software no matter what, else security will get worse.
The tools exist. The CSI fantasy crap is that you'll ever be on the recieving end, unless you manage to do something that threatens national security or run a criminal empire.
They do exist, but apparently you don't understand how they work. GP is correct: the memory dump has to be made before the charge in the capacitors "leaks" away after shutdown. Researchers have managed to extend this period using supercooling ("freezing") techniques, but it still has to be done pretty much immediately. In your typical laptop: not a chance. You won't get one screw of the RAM cover off, much less all of them, by the time it's all gone.
Further, full-disk encryption (which everybody should use) defeats the old Firewire technique. No password, no access. End of story.
Further, you have been watching too much TV. "No-knock" warrants, while they have been issued too often in recent years, are supposed to be special-purpose only: for the rare circumstances when chance of flight, or injury to officers, is likely when they announce themselves. Preservation of evidence is not normally a valid justification for a no-knock warrant. In normal circumstances, they're supposed to knock on the door and READ you the warrant, during daylight no less, before you are obligated to let them in.
Not that I genuinely have anything to hide, but I have remote-controlled outlets. I can shut the power off with the press of a button, from anywhere in the house. I did not do that to protect my data, but I could use it that way if I wanted.
No, I didn't "miss" his point. MY point was that you can easily achieve exactly the same thing, without losing your data.
GP did mention that you can "claim" that was your system when you didn't actually use it. Fair enough... but also completely unnecessary. A set of cards with numbers on them is a lot cheaper than $100 bills.
The meaning of the "general welfare" clause has been controversial since the start of the union.
Did you read your own reference? The first two paragraphs claim exactly what I already stated.
It is only "controversial" to those who have not done their historical research, and who want to assign a different "modern" meaning to it. In the same way Obama has played games with the rest of the Constitution.
Instead, there's an incredible bloat of stuff that we HOPE is good. An actual process might be better. What kind? Something more than Linus yelling at you.
But this just leads back to the final line in OP:
As such, the trust is left to the open source community, and is that really so different than leaving it to a corporation with closed source?
And despite Betteridge's Law, the answer to this is Yes. Because when flaws are found, the community DOES audit, and repair.
Great example: a couple of years after Oracle assumed control of MySQL, people left in droves. Why? Because when it was open source it was better maintained, security flaws were patched faster and more often, etc.
Was that specifically a security issue? No. But it's still illustrative of the difference.
One of the most frequent refrains from the big broadband players and their friends who are fighting against net neutrality rules is that there's no evidence that ISPs have been abusing a lack of net neutrality rules in the past, so why would they start now?
Since when? Comcast routinely throttled P2P and other traffic until the FCC forced them to stop, a couple of years ago.
Their method was to send fake reset packets. The only way they could do that is via deep packet inspection and intentionally messing with your "private" communication.
Good luck with that. People won't give up gasoline and they won't give up their shitty media. You can depend on that.
It isn't that they won't. It's that they don't have choices. Which makes this doubly bad.
Many people have kept pointing to Big Cable as an example of "capitalism gone bad". But the real problem is exactly the opposite. Most of the United States has only one cable provider in their area. So there is no competitive market. The big cable companies have "compartmentalized" the country and decided on who can service what area. (Which they ADMIT to, but which is grossly illegal, against federal antitrust law. In fact they CLAIM ownership of this illegal behavior, and actually tout it as a "reason" why the FCC should approve the merger: because they're not competing anyway. That is incredibly arrogant and really rather stupid.)
I make my living via the internet. And I only have one cable provider in my area. That is Not A Good Thing.
Utter nonsense. You can get security at least as random with modern cryptography software, and still remember the password (unlike 50 ordered dollar bills).
And you don't have to let them pick up the bills. You just hit the "off" switch, and all is done. Let them ask all they want. You don't have to tell them. (At least in the U.S.)
With decent modern cryptography, YOU get to keep the password in memory, while they thrash around in the dark. The beauty being, of course, that they will never figure it out, but the information is still there when you get everything back later.
Here, the law says they can't compel you to produce an encryption key, except under very particular, special circumstances. And that is the way the law should be.
As a distraction from the real password, your idea is not a bad one. But it's poorly implemented. You could accomplish exactly the same with some of those fortunes from fortune cookies that have lottery numbers on them. Or some other cheaper method. All you really need is slips of paper or card with numbers.
Uh... just no. The people who pay those greens fees are paid by the taxpayer. So it's not just guesswork or theoretical. Taxpayer money really does pay for the golf courses.
One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus [usatoday.com], and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese. [newsmax.com]
This.
CDC needs to get back to its original mandate, which is to study infectious disease. When it got involved in these political issues, it started handling them both badly and dishonestly. And that's very bad, because it ruins their credibility about the things they're supposed to be doing.
We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.
"general welfare" as part of the spending power section is all that congress
needs to craft well considered laws.
Not true. The historical record very clearly shows that the "general welfare" clause was a restrictive clause, not a permissive one.
The point is that any Federal law which is otherwise Constitutional also has to be "for the general welfare", as opposed to for the welfare of just one, or a few, or some subgroup of the populace.
The General Welfare clause does NOT grant license for the Federal government to exceed the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Period. It grants no new power at all, in fact. It does the opposite. It restricts all Federal laws to be for the good of everybody. That was its whole purpose.
The onus of evidence is always on the person making the positive claim, not the skeptic. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". If someone cannot back up a statement with a proper citation, the statement should be assumed false and rejected until such time as the claimant provides credible sources.
You're trying to lecture the wrong guy about this. There isn't a single thing here about which I disagree... IF it were a debate or a scientific paper. The thing is, though, that I'm NOT trying to debate, or to prove anything, so there is no onus at all, on anybody.
This isn't a debate. It's Slashdot. And I will damned well decide for myself whether I want to spend a bunch of time looking shit up for people I don't even know.
You are free to disbelieve me if you like. I don't particularly care. I'm not trying to prove anything here (which is the main point). I repeat: I just mentioned some facts I thought you might find interesting. If you do, and you want to look them up yourself and get educated on the subject, fine. If not, and you don't want to bother, that's fine too. It's all up to you.
That should show you the true scale and not the " "orders of magnitude" more power output than any known chemical source" that you've been misled into imagining.
I understand that unlike some people here, you're not deliberately trolling, but just no.
*IF* the power output figures are in the actual ballpark, then it *IS* orders of magnitude more than any chemical source OF THE SAME SIZE. I have repeated this a couple of times. You have to take size into account.
I am not claiming this whole thing is true. But I am saying that IF it is true, it is indeed a breakthrough in power density.
Please provide proper citations to the peer reviewed journals this research was published in.
Please learn how to use Google. I'm not going to spend the time here to summarize a subject I've been following for several years here on Slashdot, just for your benefit. I have other things to do with my time.
This isn't a scientific debate. I was just mentioning relevant facts I thought you might find interesting. If you don't believe me, you are welcome to look it up, but I'm not going to take time out of my day to "prove" it to you.
Also, an anomaly in one experiment (especially one that cannot be reproduced) is a long way from success.
I have repeatedly demonstrated that this person who calls himself "kayman80" has been blatantly dishonest about past conversations that have occurred here on Slashdot and elsewhere. And that he has a habit of deliberately distorting what other people say, for reasons of his own.
I have ceased feeding the troll. I recommend that you do so as well.
2 kW is less current then a standard single phase socket puts out. It is ably carried by 1mm or smaller conductors. There was a 3-phase power supply involved in this experiment, connected to something which is functionally a bar heater.
Not quite. But a resistive heater, yes.
The values for total power out that they computer are only in the 2200 W range - still practically doable by our aformentioned single phase power socket.
So yes, tiny is the correct word.
How do you figure? 2200 W for 720 hours straight is twice the amount of electric power a U.S. household consumes in the same period of time. No, I don't call that tiny. Why? Because allegedly it came from ONE GRAM of fuel. As I mentioned above, you have to account for the size of the source, when measuring whether it's tiny or large. It's all relative.
Further, according to earlier reports, the same gram of fuel will last for at least 6 months. At steady power output, that's more than an average U.S. home consumes in a year, on a couple of dollars worth of fuel.
So in that context, I think calling it "tiny" is just plain ridiculous.
It's worth keeping in mind that the inventor supplied the devices that measured both the input and the output and the observers just had to take it on trust that they were reporting the correct numbers.
Where did you get that idea? It's just plain false. Quote the actual paper (which you should read!):
All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturersâ(TM) laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings. For this purpose, before the official commencement of the test, both PCEs were individually connected to the power mains selected for powering the reactor. For each of the three phases, readings returned a value of 230 ± 2V, which is appropriate for an industrial establishment power network. The IR cameras, on the other hand, were focused on circular tabs of adhesive material of certified emissivity (henceforth referred to as âoedotsâ). The relevant readings were compared to those obtained from a thermocouple used to measure ambient temperature, and were found to be consistent with the latter, the differences being
So you are 100% wrong. The instruments belonged to the researchers themselves, and they were tested when Rossi wasn't even there.
Seriously, man, read the paper. Because you've been spouting nonsense that you would know was nonsense if you would just read the damned thing.
You're the one doing Bayesian analysis, not me. Further, you're getting it wrong.
Every single similar claim in the past has been debunked.
False. In the 20 years since Pons and Fleischmann, many have reported anomalous heat using similar systems. And in fact, BOTH NASA and the U.S. Navy have been studying LENR using nickel hydride for many years, also reporting anomalous heat.
So you are wrong. Not just wrong, but close to 180 degrees wrong. There HAVE been claims of success with similar setups, by both the U.S. military and NASA. Two rather credible sources.
The only difference is that they were not able to control it or make it predictable. That is the trick Rossi seems to have stumbled upon.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This claim is rather extraordinary and the evidence is rather paltry.
That, too, is false. First, the claims aren't "extraordinary" (other CREDIBLE sources have reported similar phenomena), and second, the evidence is actually rather good. Even including circumstantial evidence.
Second, extraordinary claims actually require exactly the same amount of solid evidence as any other scientific claim. It is either demonstrated to sufficient confidence level, or it is not.
The researchers are reputable. They did a pretty good, controlled test. They explained credibly why they didn't do a more thorough test, for example using a calorimeter. They did pretty damned well with what they had, actually.
People who haven't dealt with complex (literally) power systems always chronically underestimate how many ways you can get power into a system which will not be obviously represented as volts and amps via measurement devices.
Look at the wiring diagram. There were sophisticated electrical test instruments between BOTH the power supply and the control system, AND between the control system and the reactor.
Further, all the wires were fully exposed and available for examination by the researchers.
Further yet, the entire system was tested before the fuel was added.
You're just full of it. You aren't going to fool many people who have set it up like that. Any tampering or "secret" sources will be detected.
No, Rossi was in control of the junction box, and the box of electronics is closed.
Where are you getting this stuff? The paper doesn't say that anywhere.
As you can see from the document that I linked, in the past Rossi has set up a clamp meter around a wire coloured as phase. A scientist, who is not used to tricks would assume the wire coloured earth would not carry a current.
What Rossi did in the past has little relevance to THIS experiment, now. I'm talking about the current paper. I'm not terribly interested in your opinions about what Rossi did before.
If Rossi disagrees, he can arrange for an independent test.
Which is what he did. That's what this is all about.
I assume that the reason he refused is that his invention wouldn't work under such conditions.
That's your assumption. The Wright brothers turned down prize money too, in order to keep the details of their invention under wraps.
You have repeatedly shown, quite clearly to anyone who bothers to read this, that you are willing to deliberately distort and misrepresent the words of others in order to have your way. That's LYING.
And it isn't just right here... you've been doing it for years. As I have documented.
It's fascinating how much effort Jane/Lonny Eachus has expended just to avoid writing down the power flowing into and out of a boundary around the heat source. If Jane/Lonny Eachus is so sure that he's right, why not just write down that obviously correct energy conservation equation?
No, that's just another lie. I don't need to write down a "conservation of energy equation" in regard to Spencer's experiment. I don't refuse to do it because I can't, as you have clearly implied. I refuse to do it because this is a dead issue. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable.
Or they would be, if you weren't being such an enormous asshole.
I haven't expended ANY energy to avoid writing anything down. I've written down the proper and necessary equations not just once but many times now. Nothing else is necessary, and I have no reason to waste further effort chasing your red herrings.
All the effort I have been expending has been to correct your "mistaken" interpretations of the things I have stated. But they really could not be "mistaken", to the extent you have misrepresented them, if you had any understanding of the subject at all.
Get lost, liar. I will have nothing further to do with you.
Gray bodies have emissivities between 0 and 1. So black bodies are one limit of gray bodies. Black bodies don't scatter or reflect radiation, they only absorb it.
No shit, Sherlock. If you keep up this level of "talking down", I'm going to start treating you like a kindergartner.
Oh, okay. So Jane completely denies that the chamber walls emit radiation in through a boundary around the source. That's what I suspected from the beginning, but Jane kept coyly saying things like this:
NO, I VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT I DENY NO SUCH THING.
I don't have any patience for your lying anymore. Goodbye. I will record any responses, at least for a while, but I won't reply.
Jesus, you're an ass. I mean the most incredible ass I've ever had the misfortune to meet online. I mean that very, very sincerely.
No that's one megawatt for one hour - which is why it's an incredibly weird thing to use for a month. For the length of a month that's equivalent to 2kW for 720 hours, assuming 30 days, so a LOT less than typically household usage.
Pardon me. The number I first found when I looked up average household usage was way off.
So... average U.S. household is about 10.5 MWH. This thing put out 1.5 MWH in one month (more or less). Multiply by 12 and you get 16 MWH, which is higher than the average in even the state with the highest average, LA, which is 15 MWH.
Still, again, it's anything but tiny. You have to account for the mass of the device. Even more so for the mass of the fuel.
You don't have a shred of evidence that it's a "con". Only guesses. And bad guesses at that. Not good enough.
As much heat as implied by the con is more than 1/20 of a small jet engine so anyone nearby would be a crispy critter, and that did not happen.
Nonsense again. Once again you aren't accounting for the size of the device. It's only a few inches long. Further, it was only the center of the device which reached the high temperatures; there was plenty of convective cooling (in fact it was designed so there would be).
In all honesty, while I understand skepticism, some of your objections just don't hold water.
Quote the relevant portion to me please where they got to isolate it without Rossi there and check for extra inputs. How about where they got to be sure that the things they examined afterwards actually came out of it and not Rossi's hands? Sorry, there's so many things wrong here that mere hope is not enough to fox it.
Who said anything about "hope"? Did you read the paper or not? EVIDENCE suggests you did not. According to the paper they set up the apparatus themselves, before Rossi was even there.
Further, another Slashdotter took the time to look up the researchers. They're legit.
You don't get to "debunk" things based on guesses, no matter what your opinion may be.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not the best example, one could object that MySQL was bought to be eventually snuffed.
Actually, that's just part of the same argument. Open source has no way to snuff programs. They're just picked up by others and carried on.
And in fact, that's what happened to MySQL. Many -- possibly even a majority by now -- webhosts have replaced MySQL with MariaDB, and hardly anybody even notices. MariaDB is a fork of the pre-Oracle, open-source MySQL. So if Oracle was really trying to kill it, they failed. It lives on, newer and in many ways better, just under a different name.
On the other hand this highlights the very problem with non-free software. All considerations, including security, are secondary to the corporation's mission. So, there needs to be free software no matter what, else security will get worse.
I certainly agree with you there.
The tools exist. The CSI fantasy crap is that you'll ever be on the recieving end, unless you manage to do something that threatens national security or run a criminal empire.
They do exist, but apparently you don't understand how they work. GP is correct: the memory dump has to be made before the charge in the capacitors "leaks" away after shutdown. Researchers have managed to extend this period using supercooling ("freezing") techniques, but it still has to be done pretty much immediately. In your typical laptop: not a chance. You won't get one screw of the RAM cover off, much less all of them, by the time it's all gone.
Further, full-disk encryption (which everybody should use) defeats the old Firewire technique. No password, no access. End of story.
Further, you have been watching too much TV. "No-knock" warrants, while they have been issued too often in recent years, are supposed to be special-purpose only: for the rare circumstances when chance of flight, or injury to officers, is likely when they announce themselves. Preservation of evidence is not normally a valid justification for a no-knock warrant. In normal circumstances, they're supposed to knock on the door and READ you the warrant, during daylight no less, before you are obligated to let them in.
Not that I genuinely have anything to hide, but I have remote-controlled outlets. I can shut the power off with the press of a button, from anywhere in the house. I did not do that to protect my data, but I could use it that way if I wanted.
No, I didn't "miss" his point. MY point was that you can easily achieve exactly the same thing, without losing your data.
GP did mention that you can "claim" that was your system when you didn't actually use it. Fair enough... but also completely unnecessary. A set of cards with numbers on them is a lot cheaper than $100 bills.
The meaning of the "general welfare" clause has been controversial since the start of the union.
Did you read your own reference? The first two paragraphs claim exactly what I already stated.
It is only "controversial" to those who have not done their historical research, and who want to assign a different "modern" meaning to it. In the same way Obama has played games with the rest of the Constitution.
Instead, there's an incredible bloat of stuff that we HOPE is good. An actual process might be better. What kind? Something more than Linus yelling at you.
But this just leads back to the final line in OP:
As such, the trust is left to the open source community, and is that really so different than leaving it to a corporation with closed source?
And despite Betteridge's Law, the answer to this is Yes. Because when flaws are found, the community DOES audit, and repair.
Great example: a couple of years after Oracle assumed control of MySQL, people left in droves. Why? Because when it was open source it was better maintained, security flaws were patched faster and more often, etc.
Was that specifically a security issue? No. But it's still illustrative of the difference.
One of the most frequent refrains from the big broadband players and their friends who are fighting against net neutrality rules is that there's no evidence that ISPs have been abusing a lack of net neutrality rules in the past, so why would they start now?
Since when? Comcast routinely throttled P2P and other traffic until the FCC forced them to stop, a couple of years ago.
Their method was to send fake reset packets. The only way they could do that is via deep packet inspection and intentionally messing with your "private" communication.
Good luck with that. People won't give up gasoline and they won't give up their shitty media. You can depend on that.
It isn't that they won't. It's that they don't have choices. Which makes this doubly bad.
Many people have kept pointing to Big Cable as an example of "capitalism gone bad". But the real problem is exactly the opposite. Most of the United States has only one cable provider in their area. So there is no competitive market. The big cable companies have "compartmentalized" the country and decided on who can service what area. (Which they ADMIT to, but which is grossly illegal, against federal antitrust law. In fact they CLAIM ownership of this illegal behavior, and actually tout it as a "reason" why the FCC should approve the merger: because they're not competing anyway. That is incredibly arrogant and really rather stupid.)
I make my living via the internet. And I only have one cable provider in my area. That is Not A Good Thing.
Utter nonsense. You can get security at least as random with modern cryptography software, and still remember the password (unlike 50 ordered dollar bills).
And you don't have to let them pick up the bills. You just hit the "off" switch, and all is done. Let them ask all they want. You don't have to tell them. (At least in the U.S.)
With decent modern cryptography, YOU get to keep the password in memory, while they thrash around in the dark. The beauty being, of course, that they will never figure it out, but the information is still there when you get everything back later.
Here, the law says they can't compel you to produce an encryption key, except under very particular, special circumstances. And that is the way the law should be.
As a distraction from the real password, your idea is not a bad one. But it's poorly implemented. You could accomplish exactly the same with some of those fortunes from fortune cookies that have lottery numbers on them. Or some other cheaper method. All you really need is slips of paper or card with numbers.
Uh... just no. The people who pay those greens fees are paid by the taxpayer. So it's not just guesswork or theoretical. Taxpayer money really does pay for the golf courses.
One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus [usatoday.com], and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese. [newsmax.com]
This.
CDC needs to get back to its original mandate, which is to study infectious disease. When it got involved in these political issues, it started handling them both badly and dishonestly. And that's very bad, because it ruins their credibility about the things they're supposed to be doing.
We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.
That too.
"general welfare" as part of the spending power section is all that congress needs to craft well considered laws.
Not true. The historical record very clearly shows that the "general welfare" clause was a restrictive clause, not a permissive one.
The point is that any Federal law which is otherwise Constitutional also has to be "for the general welfare", as opposed to for the welfare of just one, or a few, or some subgroup of the populace.
The General Welfare clause does NOT grant license for the Federal government to exceed the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Period. It grants no new power at all, in fact. It does the opposite. It restricts all Federal laws to be for the good of everybody. That was its whole purpose.
The onus of evidence is always on the person making the positive claim, not the skeptic. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". If someone cannot back up a statement with a proper citation, the statement should be assumed false and rejected until such time as the claimant provides credible sources.
You're trying to lecture the wrong guy about this. There isn't a single thing here about which I disagree... IF it were a debate or a scientific paper. The thing is, though, that I'm NOT trying to debate, or to prove anything, so there is no onus at all, on anybody.
This isn't a debate. It's Slashdot. And I will damned well decide for myself whether I want to spend a bunch of time looking shit up for people I don't even know.
You are free to disbelieve me if you like. I don't particularly care. I'm not trying to prove anything here (which is the main point). I repeat: I just mentioned some facts I thought you might find interesting. If you do, and you want to look them up yourself and get educated on the subject, fine. If not, and you don't want to bother, that's fine too. It's all up to you.
That should show you the true scale and not the " "orders of magnitude" more power output than any known chemical source" that you've been misled into imagining.
I understand that unlike some people here, you're not deliberately trolling, but just no.
*IF* the power output figures are in the actual ballpark, then it *IS* orders of magnitude more than any chemical source OF THE SAME SIZE. I have repeated this a couple of times. You have to take size into account.
I am not claiming this whole thing is true. But I am saying that IF it is true, it is indeed a breakthrough in power density.
Please provide proper citations to the peer reviewed journals this research was published in.
Please learn how to use Google. I'm not going to spend the time here to summarize a subject I've been following for several years here on Slashdot, just for your benefit. I have other things to do with my time.
This isn't a scientific debate. I was just mentioning relevant facts I thought you might find interesting. If you don't believe me, you are welcome to look it up, but I'm not going to take time out of my day to "prove" it to you.
Also, an anomaly in one experiment (especially one that cannot be reproduced) is a long way from success.
No shit, Sherlock. Look it up.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
Dear readers:
I have repeatedly demonstrated that this person who calls himself "kayman80" has been blatantly dishonest about past conversations that have occurred here on Slashdot and elsewhere. And that he has a habit of deliberately distorting what other people say, for reasons of his own.
I have ceased feeding the troll. I recommend that you do so as well.
2 kW is less current then a standard single phase socket puts out. It is ably carried by 1mm or smaller conductors. There was a 3-phase power supply involved in this experiment, connected to something which is functionally a bar heater.
Not quite. But a resistive heater, yes.
The values for total power out that they computer are only in the 2200 W range - still practically doable by our aformentioned single phase power socket.
So yes, tiny is the correct word.
How do you figure? 2200 W for 720 hours straight is twice the amount of electric power a U.S. household consumes in the same period of time. No, I don't call that tiny. Why? Because allegedly it came from ONE GRAM of fuel. As I mentioned above, you have to account for the size of the source, when measuring whether it's tiny or large. It's all relative.
Further, according to earlier reports, the same gram of fuel will last for at least 6 months. At steady power output, that's more than an average U.S. home consumes in a year, on a couple of dollars worth of fuel.
So in that context, I think calling it "tiny" is just plain ridiculous.
It's worth keeping in mind that the inventor supplied the devices that measured both the input and the output and the observers just had to take it on trust that they were reporting the correct numbers.
Where did you get that idea? It's just plain false. Quote the actual paper (which you should read!):
All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturersâ(TM) laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings. For this purpose, before the official commencement of the test, both PCEs were individually connected to the power mains selected for powering the reactor. For each of the three phases, readings returned a value of 230 ± 2V, which is appropriate for an industrial establishment power network. The IR cameras, on the other hand, were focused on circular tabs of adhesive material of certified emissivity (henceforth referred to as âoedotsâ). The relevant readings were compared to those obtained from a thermocouple used to measure ambient temperature, and were found to be consistent with the latter, the differences being So you are 100% wrong. The instruments belonged to the researchers themselves, and they were tested when Rossi wasn't even there.
Seriously, man, read the paper. Because you've been spouting nonsense that you would know was nonsense if you would just read the damned thing.
Every single similar claim in the past has been debunked.
False. In the 20 years since Pons and Fleischmann, many have reported anomalous heat using similar systems. And in fact, BOTH NASA and the U.S. Navy have been studying LENR using nickel hydride for many years, also reporting anomalous heat.
So you are wrong. Not just wrong, but close to 180 degrees wrong. There HAVE been claims of success with similar setups, by both the U.S. military and NASA. Two rather credible sources.
The only difference is that they were not able to control it or make it predictable. That is the trick Rossi seems to have stumbled upon.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This claim is rather extraordinary and the evidence is rather paltry.
That, too, is false. First, the claims aren't "extraordinary" (other CREDIBLE sources have reported similar phenomena), and second, the evidence is actually rather good. Even including circumstantial evidence.
Second, extraordinary claims actually require exactly the same amount of solid evidence as any other scientific claim. It is either demonstrated to sufficient confidence level, or it is not.
The researchers are reputable. They did a pretty good, controlled test. They explained credibly why they didn't do a more thorough test, for example using a calorimeter. They did pretty damned well with what they had, actually.
People who haven't dealt with complex (literally) power systems always chronically underestimate how many ways you can get power into a system which will not be obviously represented as volts and amps via measurement devices.
Look at the wiring diagram. There were sophisticated electrical test instruments between BOTH the power supply and the control system, AND between the control system and the reactor.
Further, all the wires were fully exposed and available for examination by the researchers.
Further yet, the entire system was tested before the fuel was added.
You're just full of it. You aren't going to fool many people who have set it up like that. Any tampering or "secret" sources will be detected.
No, Rossi was in control of the junction box, and the box of electronics is closed.
Where are you getting this stuff? The paper doesn't say that anywhere.
As you can see from the document that I linked, in the past Rossi has set up a clamp meter around a wire coloured as phase. A scientist, who is not used to tricks would assume the wire coloured earth would not carry a current.
What Rossi did in the past has little relevance to THIS experiment, now. I'm talking about the current paper. I'm not terribly interested in your opinions about what Rossi did before.
If Rossi disagrees, he can arrange for an independent test.
Which is what he did. That's what this is all about.
I assume that the reason he refused is that his invention wouldn't work under such conditions.
That's your assumption. The Wright brothers turned down prize money too, in order to keep the details of their invention under wraps.
And it isn't just right here... you've been doing it for years. As I have documented.
It's fascinating how much effort Jane/Lonny Eachus has expended just to avoid writing down the power flowing into and out of a boundary around the heat source. If Jane/Lonny Eachus is so sure that he's right, why not just write down that obviously correct energy conservation equation?
No, that's just another lie. I don't need to write down a "conservation of energy equation" in regard to Spencer's experiment. I don't refuse to do it because I can't, as you have clearly implied. I refuse to do it because this is a dead issue. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable.
Or they would be, if you weren't being such an enormous asshole.
I haven't expended ANY energy to avoid writing anything down. I've written down the proper and necessary equations not just once but many times now. Nothing else is necessary, and I have no reason to waste further effort chasing your red herrings.
All the effort I have been expending has been to correct your "mistaken" interpretations of the things I have stated. But they really could not be "mistaken", to the extent you have misrepresented them, if you had any understanding of the subject at all.
Get lost, liar. I will have nothing further to do with you.
A Nigerian 419 scam ceases to be a scam if you get paid by the Nigerian.
This.
Gray bodies have emissivities between 0 and 1. So black bodies are one limit of gray bodies. Black bodies don't scatter or reflect radiation, they only absorb it.
No shit, Sherlock. If you keep up this level of "talking down", I'm going to start treating you like a kindergartner.
Oh, okay. So Jane completely denies that the chamber walls emit radiation in through a boundary around the source. That's what I suspected from the beginning, but Jane kept coyly saying things like this:
NO, I VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT I DENY NO SUCH THING.
I don't have any patience for your lying anymore. Goodbye. I will record any responses, at least for a while, but I won't reply.
Jesus, you're an ass. I mean the most incredible ass I've ever had the misfortune to meet online. I mean that very, very sincerely.
No that's one megawatt for one hour - which is why it's an incredibly weird thing to use for a month. For the length of a month that's equivalent to 2kW for 720 hours, assuming 30 days, so a LOT less than typically household usage.
Pardon me. The number I first found when I looked up average household usage was way off.
So... average U.S. household is about 10.5 MWH. This thing put out 1.5 MWH in one month (more or less). Multiply by 12 and you get 16 MWH, which is higher than the average in even the state with the highest average, LA, which is 15 MWH.
Still, again, it's anything but tiny. You have to account for the mass of the device. Even more so for the mass of the fuel.
You don't have a shred of evidence that it's a "con". Only guesses. And bad guesses at that. Not good enough.
As much heat as implied by the con is more than 1/20 of a small jet engine so anyone nearby would be a crispy critter, and that did not happen.
Nonsense again. Once again you aren't accounting for the size of the device. It's only a few inches long. Further, it was only the center of the device which reached the high temperatures; there was plenty of convective cooling (in fact it was designed so there would be).
In all honesty, while I understand skepticism, some of your objections just don't hold water.
Quote the relevant portion to me please where they got to isolate it without Rossi there and check for extra inputs. How about where they got to be sure that the things they examined afterwards actually came out of it and not Rossi's hands? Sorry, there's so many things wrong here that mere hope is not enough to fox it.
Who said anything about "hope"? Did you read the paper or not? EVIDENCE suggests you did not. According to the paper they set up the apparatus themselves, before Rossi was even there.
Further, another Slashdotter took the time to look up the researchers. They're legit.
You don't get to "debunk" things based on guesses, no matter what your opinion may be.