Just because you are in computers does not mean you have a clue about physics.
FYI, I have a BEng in Mechanical Engineering and studied for my MEng in Industrial Engineering, precisely specialising in energy (i.e., power plants, nuclear power, etc.). I have also a relevant working experience in engineering/physics. I currently work as a programmer, but this fact doesn't remove all my knowledge about this matter. But why are you criticising me in a so arbitrary way? Are my arguments flawed? Could you please argue against them rather than against me? And also try to base your critics upon actual facts and/or logic, rather than on inventing random ideas like saying that I have no clue about physics.
The energy transfer to coolants is the easy part.
Radiation is quite easy to calculate.
A large water volume can absorb plenty of heat.
I find these references pretty descriptive of your actual engineering/power-plant knowledge. Are you mixing up the water in the cooling system with the one used to generate electricity (the main tank whose temperature is kept around 100 to generate steam, to move the turbine + generator)? You are a big-picture guy, aren't you? (-> this is for saying that I have no clue about physics:)).
The hard part is the shaping and control of the plasma by magnetic means.
I didn't say that this was easy (the only person here using this word to describe what is unimaginably complex is you). Actually, this is complex enough to, IMO, stop considering this option right away. But even in case of having this in place, managing the temperature to be transferred to the water would be extremely difficult too.
If the plasma "breaks out" it will simply heat the walls and nothing dangerous happens
Why would happen anything dangerous? You are plainly dealing with the hottest reality ever with which no material can deal. You would also be dealing with self-sustained chain reactions which might be stopped at will, right? Are you completely sure about that? Aren't these the kind of things about which nobody knows anything because they have never been done? Like all the fission problems about which the nuclear power pioneers didn't even dream that could occur?
Wouldn't it be as simple as the containing vessel heating up
As simple as containing the plasma for very long (but never done), as simple as going to Mars and coming back (never done), etc. Assuming that something you don't fully (not even partially; you and anyone else, because this situation has never happened) understand is easy doesn't seem as a sensible approach. Additionally, when we are talking about crazily demanding conditions beyond anything which has ever been tried, that word sounds even more inadequate (to say it very softly).
Note that the reason for using magnetic fields (a virtually experimental methodology, very expensive and with unclear reliability) to confine the plasma (the vessel surrounds the magnetic field, but never touches the plasma) is that it is too hot for anything else (I mean any material ever). All what they are doing now is trying to keep the plasma for as long as possible, what means making sure that the temperature outside the magnetic field is low enough.
Their theory seems (corresponding section of the ITER webpage, the most ambitious fusion project) to agree with your suggestion: the small proportion of plasma heat getting outside the field is used to increase the temperature of the surrounding water (what, as per my knowledge, hasn't ever been tested). Even by assuming that all this works and by forgetting about all the problems which such a setup might provoke, how could you know/affect in any way the temperature variation? The generation of steam isn't precisely a random process happening under random conditions. The exact temperatures of the water and of the generated steam have to be perfectly controlled. A process like fission is highly stable, predictable and controllable; to not mention that the default temperatures are already quite close to the target (the reactor is precisely designed to make sure that this is the case). I don't know, perhaps something like a range of 90-110 Celsius degree at the water tank under extreme conditions. But what can you do when dealing with millions of degrees? How can you come up with a way to tune up these values to meet orders of magnitude smaller targets? Getting the 0.000000231% of the plasma's heat and, eventually, moving it to 0.000000232% to account for whatever issue? Could you put an example of a methodology allowing to convert 10^6 values into 100 with a precision below 1? Can such a methodology deal with a temperature-variation scenario?
500 degrees
Even my assuming that this would be possible, how do you expect to modify this temperature to reach the 100 target? Whatever you do would imply an additional expense of energy which would have to be brought into consideration while determining the total gain/loss.
to control the plasma so they can maybe later, in a couple of years build a fusion reactor that works as an energy source
A couple of years seems way too optimistic to do something which have been tried for quite long already and never accomplished. Logically, the exact meaning of control has to be understood within the power plant context; some seconds or even hours isn't a big deal (other than within a very slow step-by-step research), because this is expected to be run non-stop for very long periods (at least, a few months). It would also imply to account for eventual problems and have backup alternatives (security- and service-wise). By bearing all this in mind, I don't think that anyone will be able to "control the plasma" within the next quite few years (if possible at all under the intended conditions).
Even after having adequately accounted for the aforementioned issue and even by forgetting about anything else (e.g., global security and reliability, potential problems of a new technology, costs and real gain with respect to other alternatives, etc.), the transition from a controlled plasma to an actual energy generation is also quite difficult. Imagine that you have a flowing mass as hot as the surface of the sun, forget about all the security or operational issues and just answer this question: how is it supposed to generate electricity (= become an actual power plant)? What the current fission plants do isn't applicable here because the temperature ranges are completely different. The residual heat from the fission reactions is hot (and cold) enough to be almost directly applied to a tank of water (which is converted into steam, which moves a turbine, which is coupled with a generator, which generates electricity). Now you are dealing with the hottest thing on earth, what can you do with it? Potentially, lots of electricity might be extracted from it, but how could it be done? There are some theories accounting for this part too; but again they haven't ever been adequately tested mainly because the prerequisite (extremely-hot plasma standing there for long enough) hasn't still happened.
The problem with the bio alternatives is that they need more complex industrial processes to be generated (= additional emissions); this reality, together with other issues, makes them not relevant enough (bear in mind the entrance barriers and lobbies which make the adoption of new fuels very difficult). That's why the main focus of the industry is put on optimising engine's operating conditions, adding some hardware (e.g., filters) and improving existing fuels (+ doing some research on promising lines, but mostly as plan B and for a not near future).
I think that my position (and yours) is clear enough and that we have extended this conversion for quite long already. So, I hope that you will not mind me stopping here.
the NOx primarily. but that can be scrubbed out now
NOx and soot (+ additional secondary ones), which might be reduced but not completely removed; to not mention the fact that we don't even fully know (and logically cannot stop) the smallest-size particles which are also the most dangerous for the health. Additionally, equivalent things (i.e., systematically-getting-better technology which allows decreasingly low emissions) can be said about gasoline.
Reducing emissions in IC engines is a very complicate matter, as proven by the recent scandals: meeting the legal limits (set by general-talking people without a proper understanding of this whole reality) is so difficult that some cheating had to occur (bear in mind that engines not meeting the legal emission limits cannot be commercialised). IC engines are intrinsically-polluting machines which have been optimised during over the last 100 years. Some improvements are certainly possible, converting them into clean alternatives is not (outside marketing/advertisement departments and the dreams of not too knowledgeable or realistic people).
It is difficult to tell what is more or less clean, mainly when talking about Diesel/gasoline. They are very different on many fronts, including the type of pollutants they generate (BTW, Diesel engines are more efficient and, consequently, generate less CO2, by assuming that you consider this a pollutant, not the case with many people). Telling which unhealthy emission is better or worse isn't easy and, in any case, most likely irrelevant; these issues are rarely defined according to science/reason, but by politicians, lobbies or (the rarely wise) public opinion.
To not mention many other factors which increase the complexity of this situation a lot (e.g., bringing into account the industrial processes generating both types of fuels or accessory actions, typical time/power usage of each engine, types of pollutants which are already targeted by other actions, etc.). That's why I prefer to stick to ideas on the lines of "both are similarly bad for the environment, but we have to continue using them for the time being". Also note that a coal plant is certainly not clean, but part of the Diesel/gasoline group (i.e., something which we have and, for the time being, cannot replace on a significant enough scale. Target for hypocrite, short-sighted and mostly-ignorant trends, usually started and promoted by egoist parties only interested in their own gain).
I fully agree with you (sorry about having deleted my previous upvote with this comment:)), there is no solid reason for preferring gasoline over diesel. Both alternatives are equivalent(ly bad for the environment) and have their pros and cons, although Diesel got a bad name (not sure why). Thermodynamically speaking and as you rightly pointed out, the Diesel cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle (not exactly used by modern gasoline engines, but useful for comparison purposes).
Some years ago, I did work on internal-combustion-engine emissions, mostly on Diesel engines. I am not defending Diesel (or IC engines in general), but honesty and realism: stopping relying on Diesel/IC engines right away (or in the next 10-20 years) is plainly impossible. There aren't even reliable alternatives for a big proportion of scenarios where they are being systematically used; not just cars/trucks, but also ships, heavy machinery and power plants. The costs associated with the replacement of a relevant proportion of Diesel (or IC in general) engines are unimaginably high and always by getting worse performance/reliability. I am all for evolution and small improvements in the right direction, but completely against hypocrisy and nice words with no real meaning.
J is the SI unit for energy, J/m^3 for energy density and J/kg for specific energy. There are also other names, like J/kg = Gr (gray) which is the SI unit for absorbed dose.
If you call something energy, you would have to measure it in units including an energy component (although a simplified representation might also be used). Example: specific energy represented by m^2/s^2 because of applying E = F*s (more accurately, delta s) & F = m*a = m*s/t^2 => m*s^2/t^2, in SI units: J = N*m = kg*m^2/s^2). Even generic-not-really-used-in-actual-calculations energies have to comply with that requirement.
On the line of clarifying-each-single-bit-because-some-people-need-loooooooots-of-help-to-get-anything-straight which I started in one of my previous comments, I want to highlight that my aforementioned message to random/stupid/unfair/etc. moderators should be seen as a warning rather than as a complain. I am not compelled to come here and share my ideas, discuss with others, etc. I do it only because of feeling like doing it, because of liking this site and most of its visitors.
Those misusing moderation (here or in other sites; this is a relatively common practice in programming-based social media) are usually coming from the wrong understanding that they have to be tolerated. They are usually the kind of (bad) managerial types expecting other people to accept their (arbitrary) decisions. They come from an obsolete, ignorance-based way of life and deliver the only thing which they have ever known. Internet represents the worst environment for these people: lots of different options, the place where only the objectively-better alternatives should succeed. Surprisingly, these individuals seem to have been able to trick naive victims into seriously believing that their nonsense is required; that the specific option which they have contaminated with their sad actions is the only possible alternative; that their arbitrary and unfair behaviours have to exist. This isn't true, neither here nor anywhere else (in internet).
I didn't mean complying with an existing theory, but just having proper results from which some worthy conclusions might be drawn. These tests are inconclusive (to say it softly) and don't prove anything.
Clarification brought to you by even-the-slighest-bit-has-to-be-clarified-because-there-are-looooooots-of-stupid-people-around: this previous post was evidently my sarcastic way of saying "why on the hell, piece of crap, do you think that I care at all about your incoherent nonsense?".
I cannot argue against such a solid argument from what seems a marvellous human being; you are not just knowledgeable and reasonable, but also brave. Just one piece of advice: if anyone, at any point, ask you a question on the lines of "could you please define yourself with one sentence?", you should definitively use the aforementioned master piece. Thanks for existing.
This is also their way to say "We don't want to accept that this isn't the right direction. We should be honest to ourselves, to our sponsors, to the expectations we have created and to the scientific community and plainly recognise that our assumptions were wrong; that the main conclusion of our experiments was that nothing relevant could be found. Anyone interested in further funding our research should be fully aware about the fact that, at the moment, we have exactly nothing. But there are lots of money, hopes and reputations on stake; why losing all this? We don't need to be so extremely clear. We can publish our results and let everyone draw their own conclusions".
I see. I focused on your first "No... experimental data only has to be accurate" without reading the rest of your post. This is a horrible behaviour and I do apologise for it. In my defence, I am a bit tired after having dealt with quite a few people not willing to understand properly. In any case, note that I personally wouldn't see any problem with a theory built over a solid set of empirical results (perhaps breaking some theory, but not everything/the basics). So, matching an existing theory isn't an essential requisite for me (but without this, the quality of the measurements would have to be tremendously high).
And what is the first step for something to even have the chance to be accurate? Is 5 accurate? No, 5 is nothing. Is 5 mm accurate? It depends. Is 5 mm when measuring a 6 mm length and with a 0.00001 mm tolerance accurate? Certainly not. Is 5 mm when . . . , etc. To know what accurate is you have to firstly know what you are measuring/doing. As explained in other posts, you are misinterpreting my words by assuming a meaning which they don't have. Making sense has to be understood within the specific context (i.e., experimental measurements here). As far as there is no theory, the measurements have to be reliable enough (more reliable than when just applying a working theory), this is what I meant with "making sense". Considering only 3 scenarios with very different behaviours; having a few (below 20) measuring points; observing a tremendous variability; etc. All this defines a not-making-sense-at-all situation under the current conditions (you can use any other expression to define this reality if you prefer).
This will be my last clarification on this front. Feel free (you or anyone else) to misinterpret my words in whatever way you want, but don't expect my answer.
(What do you think about this post, censoring-and-attacking-anything-you-don't-understand-or-share downvoters? Is it more undeserved-downvote-worthy than my previous comment or less?)
I get your idea (and got the parent's one too; but I preferred to not extend a conversation going nowhere) and insist in the fact that you are misinterpreting my words by assuming that my "making sense" means "agreeing with a specific theory" what doesn't. I used a generic expression meant to be properly understood within each specific context (i.e., different meaning in a theoretical analysis than in an experimental one). I meant being sensible, practical, coherent, consistent, etc.; having the capability of distinguishing between clearly wrong and risky-but-perhaps-worthy; etc. By understanding this intention (how I think that everyone understands "making sense" on any context), science has to make sense because not making sense would be acting recklessly, fanatically, crazily, stupidly, etc.
I don't like getting involved in these discussions where the main focus is put on finding out the best way to phrase an idea, rather than on the idea itself. Please, understand my position and my zero interest in being part of certain of certain conversations.
(Would this post get a troll-prize too? Because the downvoting-anything-they-don't-like-or-including-any-not-nice-enough-word moderators are quite active today)
I am not sure what I find more curious in your "contribution": having to rely on a (caveman) example to explain what seems a pretty simple concept (= your childish misinterpretation of my words + trying to transmit what seems your pretty limited understanding on many fronts, including what science is, how magnetism works and where to find ferromagnetic materials), thinking that I will ever have a friend called Ooge or losing track in your own example and having a confusing ending mixing fire and magnetism up. LOL.
I agree with you, but you seem to have misunderstood my point. With "not making sense", I didn't mean that it contravenes a very specific theory, but that goes against virtually everything (including the most adequate way to set up a solid first step via experimental measurements). Equivalently to what happens with "you made a mistake" vs. "this is pure nonsense", I expect people to understand my intention without additional clarifications.
"Making sense" is a generic statement which is expected to be understood within the given context. My point should be perfectly clear to the only readers about whom I care (the properly-understanding ones). Feel free to start a purist argument about whatever issue you like, but please don’t count me in.
It is not trying to make sense - it is trying to provide data.
Experimental data have also to make sense. Senseless data are useless (or useful to conclude that continuing on this line is useless). You can support not-too-clear tests with solid theory or against-theory behaviours with solid experimental results. Faulty (counter-intuitive, non-reproducible, under too restrictive conditions, etc.) tests going against solid theories are only indicative of high likelihood of measurement errors.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you are in computers does not mean you have a clue about physics.
FYI, I have a BEng in Mechanical Engineering and studied for my MEng in Industrial Engineering, precisely specialising in energy (i.e., power plants, nuclear power, etc.). I have also a relevant working experience in engineering/physics. I currently work as a programmer, but this fact doesn't remove all my knowledge about this matter. But why are you criticising me in a so arbitrary way? Are my arguments flawed? Could you please argue against them rather than against me? And also try to base your critics upon actual facts and/or logic, rather than on inventing random ideas like saying that I have no clue about physics.
The energy transfer to coolants is the easy part.
Radiation is quite easy to calculate.
A large water volume can absorb plenty of heat.
I find these references pretty descriptive of your actual engineering/power-plant knowledge. Are you mixing up the water in the cooling system with the one used to generate electricity (the main tank whose temperature is kept around 100 to generate steam, to move the turbine + generator)? You are a big-picture guy, aren't you? (-> this is for saying that I have no clue about physics :)).
The hard part is the shaping and control of the plasma by magnetic means.
I didn't say that this was easy (the only person here using this word to describe what is unimaginably complex is you). Actually, this is complex enough to, IMO, stop considering this option right away. But even in case of having this in place, managing the temperature to be transferred to the water would be extremely difficult too.
If the plasma "breaks out" it will simply heat the walls and nothing dangerous happens
Why would happen anything dangerous? You are plainly dealing with the hottest reality ever with which no material can deal. You would also be dealing with self-sustained chain reactions which might be stopped at will, right? Are you completely sure about that? Aren't these the kind of things about which nobody knows anything because they have never been done? Like all the fission problems about which the nuclear power pioneers didn't even dream that could occur?
as simple as going to Mars and coming back
I meant a ship with (living) humans on it.
Wouldn't it be as simple as the containing vessel heating up
As simple as containing the plasma for very long (but never done), as simple as going to Mars and coming back (never done), etc. Assuming that something you don't fully (not even partially; you and anyone else, because this situation has never happened) understand is easy doesn't seem as a sensible approach. Additionally, when we are talking about crazily demanding conditions beyond anything which has ever been tried, that word sounds even more inadequate (to say it very softly).
Note that the reason for using magnetic fields (a virtually experimental methodology, very expensive and with unclear reliability) to confine the plasma (the vessel surrounds the magnetic field, but never touches the plasma) is that it is too hot for anything else (I mean any material ever). All what they are doing now is trying to keep the plasma for as long as possible, what means making sure that the temperature outside the magnetic field is low enough.
Their theory seems (corresponding section of the ITER webpage, the most ambitious fusion project) to agree with your suggestion: the small proportion of plasma heat getting outside the field is used to increase the temperature of the surrounding water (what, as per my knowledge, hasn't ever been tested). Even by assuming that all this works and by forgetting about all the problems which such a setup might provoke, how could you know/affect in any way the temperature variation? The generation of steam isn't precisely a random process happening under random conditions. The exact temperatures of the water and of the generated steam have to be perfectly controlled. A process like fission is highly stable, predictable and controllable; to not mention that the default temperatures are already quite close to the target (the reactor is precisely designed to make sure that this is the case). I don't know, perhaps something like a range of 90-110 Celsius degree at the water tank under extreme conditions. But what can you do when dealing with millions of degrees? How can you come up with a way to tune up these values to meet orders of magnitude smaller targets? Getting the 0.000000231% of the plasma's heat and, eventually, moving it to 0.000000232% to account for whatever issue? Could you put an example of a methodology allowing to convert 10^6 values into 100 with a precision below 1? Can such a methodology deal with a temperature-variation scenario?
500 degrees
Even my assuming that this would be possible, how do you expect to modify this temperature to reach the 100 target? Whatever you do would imply an additional expense of energy which would have to be brought into consideration while determining the total gain/loss.
to control the plasma so they can maybe later, in a couple of years build a fusion reactor that works as an energy source
A couple of years seems way too optimistic to do something which have been tried for quite long already and never accomplished. Logically, the exact meaning of control has to be understood within the power plant context; some seconds or even hours isn't a big deal (other than within a very slow step-by-step research), because this is expected to be run non-stop for very long periods (at least, a few months). It would also imply to account for eventual problems and have backup alternatives (security- and service-wise). By bearing all this in mind, I don't think that anyone will be able to "control the plasma" within the next quite few years (if possible at all under the intended conditions).
Even after having adequately accounted for the aforementioned issue and even by forgetting about anything else (e.g., global security and reliability, potential problems of a new technology, costs and real gain with respect to other alternatives, etc.), the transition from a controlled plasma to an actual energy generation is also quite difficult. Imagine that you have a flowing mass as hot as the surface of the sun, forget about all the security or operational issues and just answer this question: how is it supposed to generate electricity (= become an actual power plant)? What the current fission plants do isn't applicable here because the temperature ranges are completely different. The residual heat from the fission reactions is hot (and cold) enough to be almost directly applied to a tank of water (which is converted into steam, which moves a turbine, which is coupled with a generator, which generates electricity). Now you are dealing with the hottest thing on earth, what can you do with it? Potentially, lots of electricity might be extracted from it, but how could it be done? There are some theories accounting for this part too; but again they haven't ever been adequately tested mainly because the prerequisite (extremely-hot plasma standing there for long enough) hasn't still happened.
The problem with the bio alternatives is that they need more complex industrial processes to be generated (= additional emissions); this reality, together with other issues, makes them not relevant enough (bear in mind the entrance barriers and lobbies which make the adoption of new fuels very difficult). That's why the main focus of the industry is put on optimising engine's operating conditions, adding some hardware (e.g., filters) and improving existing fuels (+ doing some research on promising lines, but mostly as plan B and for a not near future).
I think that my position (and yours) is clear enough and that we have extended this conversion for quite long already. So, I hope that you will not mind me stopping here.
the NOx primarily. but that can be scrubbed out now
NOx and soot (+ additional secondary ones), which might be reduced but not completely removed; to not mention the fact that we don't even fully know (and logically cannot stop) the smallest-size particles which are also the most dangerous for the health. Additionally, equivalent things (i.e., systematically-getting-better technology which allows decreasingly low emissions) can be said about gasoline.
Reducing emissions in IC engines is a very complicate matter, as proven by the recent scandals: meeting the legal limits (set by general-talking people without a proper understanding of this whole reality) is so difficult that some cheating had to occur (bear in mind that engines not meeting the legal emission limits cannot be commercialised). IC engines are intrinsically-polluting machines which have been optimised during over the last 100 years. Some improvements are certainly possible, converting them into clean alternatives is not (outside marketing/advertisement departments and the dreams of not too knowledgeable or realistic people).
a diesel engine can be cleaner
It is difficult to tell what is more or less clean, mainly when talking about Diesel/gasoline. They are very different on many fronts, including the type of pollutants they generate (BTW, Diesel engines are more efficient and, consequently, generate less CO2, by assuming that you consider this a pollutant, not the case with many people). Telling which unhealthy emission is better or worse isn't easy and, in any case, most likely irrelevant; these issues are rarely defined according to science/reason, but by politicians, lobbies or (the rarely wise) public opinion.
To not mention many other factors which increase the complexity of this situation a lot (e.g., bringing into account the industrial processes generating both types of fuels or accessory actions, typical time/power usage of each engine, types of pollutants which are already targeted by other actions, etc.). That's why I prefer to stick to ideas on the lines of "both are similarly bad for the environment, but we have to continue using them for the time being". Also note that a coal plant is certainly not clean, but part of the Diesel/gasoline group (i.e., something which we have and, for the time being, cannot replace on a significant enough scale. Target for hypocrite, short-sighted and mostly-ignorant trends, usually started and promoted by egoist parties only interested in their own gain).
I fully agree with you (sorry about having deleted my previous upvote with this comment :)), there is no solid reason for preferring gasoline over diesel. Both alternatives are equivalent(ly bad for the environment) and have their pros and cons, although Diesel got a bad name (not sure why). Thermodynamically speaking and as you rightly pointed out, the Diesel cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle (not exactly used by modern gasoline engines, but useful for comparison purposes).
Some years ago, I did work on internal-combustion-engine emissions, mostly on Diesel engines. I am not defending Diesel (or IC engines in general), but honesty and realism: stopping relying on Diesel/IC engines right away (or in the next 10-20 years) is plainly impossible. There aren't even reliable alternatives for a big proportion of scenarios where they are being systematically used; not just cars/trucks, but also ships, heavy machinery and power plants. The costs associated with the replacement of a relevant proportion of Diesel (or IC in general) engines are unimaginably high and always by getting worse performance/reliability. I am all for evolution and small improvements in the right direction, but completely against hypocrisy and nice words with no real meaning.
I meant "in SI units: J = N*m = kg*m^2/s^2.".
J is the SI unit for energy, J/m^3 for energy density and J/kg for specific energy. There are also other names, like J/kg = Gr (gray) which is the SI unit for absorbed dose.
If you call something energy, you would have to measure it in units including an energy component (although a simplified representation might also be used). Example: specific energy represented by m^2/s^2 because of applying E = F*s (more accurately, delta s) & F = m*a = m*s/t^2 => m*s^2/t^2, in SI units: J = N*m = kg*m^2/s^2). Even generic-not-really-used-in-actual-calculations energies have to comply with that requirement.
On the line of clarifying-each-single-bit-because-some-people-need-loooooooots-of-help-to-get-anything-straight which I started in one of my previous comments, I want to highlight that my aforementioned message to random/stupid/unfair/etc. moderators should be seen as a warning rather than as a complain. I am not compelled to come here and share my ideas, discuss with others, etc. I do it only because of feeling like doing it, because of liking this site and most of its visitors.
Those misusing moderation (here or in other sites; this is a relatively common practice in programming-based social media) are usually coming from the wrong understanding that they have to be tolerated. They are usually the kind of (bad) managerial types expecting other people to accept their (arbitrary) decisions. They come from an obsolete, ignorance-based way of life and deliver the only thing which they have ever known. Internet represents the worst environment for these people: lots of different options, the place where only the objectively-better alternatives should succeed. Surprisingly, these individuals seem to have been able to trick naive victims into seriously believing that their nonsense is required; that the specific option which they have contaminated with their sad actions is the only possible alternative; that their arbitrary and unfair behaviours have to exist. This isn't true, neither here nor anywhere else (in internet).
I didn't mean complying with an existing theory, but just having proper results from which some worthy conclusions might be drawn. These tests are inconclusive (to say it softly) and don't prove anything.
Clarification brought to you by even-the-slighest-bit-has-to-be-clarified-because-there-are-looooooots-of-stupid-people-around: this previous post was evidently my sarcastic way of saying "why on the hell, piece of crap, do you think that I care at all about your incoherent nonsense?".
You fully disagree because you are an idiot.
I cannot argue against such a solid argument from what seems a marvellous human being; you are not just knowledgeable and reasonable, but also brave. Just one piece of advice: if anyone, at any point, ask you a question on the lines of "could you please define yourself with one sentence?", you should definitively use the aforementioned master piece. Thanks for existing.
This is also their way to say "We don't want to accept that this isn't the right direction. We should be honest to ourselves, to our sponsors, to the expectations we have created and to the scientific community and plainly recognise that our assumptions were wrong; that the main conclusion of our experiments was that nothing relevant could be found. Anyone interested in further funding our research should be fully aware about the fact that, at the moment, we have exactly nothing. But there are lots of money, hopes and reputations on stake; why losing all this? We don't need to be so extremely clear. We can publish our results and let everyone draw their own conclusions".
I see. I focused on your first "No... experimental data only has to be accurate" without reading the rest of your post. This is a horrible behaviour and I do apologise for it. In my defence, I am a bit tired after having dealt with quite a few people not willing to understand properly. In any case, note that I personally wouldn't see any problem with a theory built over a solid set of empirical results (perhaps breaking some theory, but not everything/the basics). So, matching an existing theory isn't an essential requisite for me (but without this, the quality of the measurements would have to be tremendously high).
I can feel right one of the purest forms of irony which I have ever experienced. Thanks, (other) AC.
only has to be accurate
And what is the first step for something to even have the chance to be accurate? Is 5 accurate? No, 5 is nothing. Is 5 mm accurate? It depends. Is 5 mm when measuring a 6 mm length and with a 0.00001 mm tolerance accurate? Certainly not. Is 5 mm when . . . , etc. To know what accurate is you have to firstly know what you are measuring/doing. As explained in other posts, you are misinterpreting my words by assuming a meaning which they don't have. Making sense has to be understood within the specific context (i.e., experimental measurements here). As far as there is no theory, the measurements have to be reliable enough (more reliable than when just applying a working theory), this is what I meant with "making sense". Considering only 3 scenarios with very different behaviours; having a few (below 20) measuring points; observing a tremendous variability; etc. All this defines a not-making-sense-at-all situation under the current conditions (you can use any other expression to define this reality if you prefer).
This will be my last clarification on this front. Feel free (you or anyone else) to misinterpret my words in whatever way you want, but don't expect my answer.
(What do you think about this post, censoring-and-attacking-anything-you-don't-understand-or-share downvoters? Is it more undeserved-downvote-worthy than my previous comment or less?)
I get your idea (and got the parent's one too; but I preferred to not extend a conversation going nowhere) and insist in the fact that you are misinterpreting my words by assuming that my "making sense" means "agreeing with a specific theory" what doesn't. I used a generic expression meant to be properly understood within each specific context (i.e., different meaning in a theoretical analysis than in an experimental one). I meant being sensible, practical, coherent, consistent, etc.; having the capability of distinguishing between clearly wrong and risky-but-perhaps-worthy; etc. By understanding this intention (how I think that everyone understands "making sense" on any context), science has to make sense because not making sense would be acting recklessly, fanatically, crazily, stupidly, etc.
I don't like getting involved in these discussions where the main focus is put on finding out the best way to phrase an idea, rather than on the idea itself. Please, understand my position and my zero interest in being part of certain of certain conversations.
(Would this post get a troll-prize too? Because the downvoting-anything-they-don't-like-or-including-any-not-nice-enough-word moderators are quite active today)
I was trying to explain how science works at a level you might understand.
??!!
you noticed the user ID numbers of the people trying to explain why you are wrong
???!!!!
Let's better be practical and don't talk to each again because our positions are very (but very, very) different.
I am not sure what I find more curious in your "contribution": having to rely on a (caveman) example to explain what seems a pretty simple concept (= your childish misinterpretation of my words + trying to transmit what seems your pretty limited understanding on many fronts, including what science is, how magnetism works and where to find ferromagnetic materials), thinking that I will ever have a friend called Ooge or losing track in your own example and having a confusing ending mixing fire and magnetism up. LOL.
I agree with you, but you seem to have misunderstood my point. With "not making sense", I didn't mean that it contravenes a very specific theory, but that goes against virtually everything (including the most adequate way to set up a solid first step via experimental measurements). Equivalently to what happens with "you made a mistake" vs. "this is pure nonsense", I expect people to understand my intention without additional clarifications.
"Making sense" is a generic statement which is expected to be understood within the given context. My point should be perfectly clear to the only readers about whom I care (the properly-understanding ones). Feel free to start a purist argument about whatever issue you like, but please don’t count me in.
Science doesn't have to make sense to be science
I fully disagree with this statement. So, I will better not get involved in a discussion with you because our positions are too different.
It is not trying to make sense - it is trying to provide data.
Experimental data have also to make sense. Senseless data are useless (or useful to conclude that continuing on this line is useless). You can support not-too-clear tests with solid theory or against-theory behaviours with solid experimental results. Faulty (counter-intuitive, non-reproducible, under too restrictive conditions, etc.) tests going against solid theories are only indicative of high likelihood of measurement errors.