To extract energy from the zero-point vacuum, we must assume that it is a "false vacuum", and a lower-energy vacuum could be created. If you convert a region of false vacuum into a lower-energy vacuum, you can extract the difference in energy. Unfortunately that region must necessarily obey different physical laws than our universe, and because it has a lower energy, that region will expand at the speed of light. By definition anything that is currently observable will be within range of that effect.
Nobody called him a fraud, even at the time. He had a controversial idea which he communicated openly and clearly. For comparison Rossi has a well-kept secret that he's charging people a whole lot of money for and refuses to talk about.
That's exactly the case. If the test doesn't work today, he says his client has given him six months to fix the "problems". I am sure that after those six months, there will just be a few kinks left.
If you're thinking of the zero-point energy, quantum mechanics actually makes it pretty clear that it's completely unavailable, even in principle. If you could extract the zero-point energy - hypothetically - you would cause a vacuum metastability event, which would destroy the observable universe.
Entertaining scams about pseudoscience are still "news for nerds", IMO. I realised more about the importance of being a good scientist from watching bad ones than anything else.
So, now the Twitter feed says they've been asked not to report until the test concludes. Which is midnight. Allegedly that's also when the video of the test will be released but I'm going to have to assume that we won't hear anything at all until they come up with an excuse and get their story straight.
With any luck the AP will write something informative about it, but maybe they'll be kicked out.
as if people with big budgets will solve this problem where people with big *brains* have been working on for ages.
The fund will provide research money to those big brains, so that they can keep doing their brain thing in an increasingly sterile funding environment. It's not startup money.
I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do?
And this funding drive will interfere with their ability to continue that research how, exactly? If you don't fund this research, the outcome is "whatever private comes up with", and if you do fund this research, the outcome is "whatever private comes up with, plus better solar". That seems like a gain to me.
In my understanding, there are no problems of this kind to solve in geothermal energy. Drilling is well developed, heat exchange too. There's no particular challenge in manufacturing that could make it a lot cheaper if solved. There's nothing much to throw money at.
Besides which, there's nothing to preclude a DOE funding project for geothermal research.
I would assume that a researcher whose job role is to create longer-lived photocells would not be able to simply fudge the projected useful life. It's kind of hard to get papers published when your methodology is "it lasts as long as I say so".
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of people work at a physics lab, he doesn't say what he does there.
Absence of evidence is not reason to believe in something, either.
Why is he currently entertaining an overseas customer then? It seems to me that to make money he only has to make a sale.
To extract energy from the zero-point vacuum, we must assume that it is a "false vacuum", and a lower-energy vacuum could be created. If you convert a region of false vacuum into a lower-energy vacuum, you can extract the difference in energy. Unfortunately that region must necessarily obey different physical laws than our universe, and because it has a lower energy, that region will expand at the speed of light. By definition anything that is currently observable will be within range of that effect.
Nobody called him a fraud, even at the time. He had a controversial idea which he communicated openly and clearly. For comparison Rossi has a well-kept secret that he's charging people a whole lot of money for and refuses to talk about.
"It must have been that bean I had for dinner."
Actually it's a pretty easy trivial thing to derive.
What the hell are you talking about?
Shechtman got published. And people were able to replicate his research.
That's exactly the case. If the test doesn't work today, he says his client has given him six months to fix the "problems". I am sure that after those six months, there will just be a few kinks left.
I think "has managed to make it work" is the aspect that people have the most objection to. There is no evidence that this is the case.
If you're thinking of the zero-point energy, quantum mechanics actually makes it pretty clear that it's completely unavailable, even in principle. If you could extract the zero-point energy - hypothetically - you would cause a vacuum metastability event, which would destroy the observable universe.
You know who did those things? Scientists.
You know who didn't do those things? Shamans mixing pastes in sheds according to arcane rules.
Rossi's work falls into the latter category.
There are a lot of people with money who either have too much ego to defer to expertise, or too little intelligence to even think of doing so.
Entertaining scams about pseudoscience are still "news for nerds", IMO. I realised more about the importance of being a good scientist from watching bad ones than anything else.
So, now the Twitter feed says they've been asked not to report until the test concludes. Which is midnight. Allegedly that's also when the video of the test will be released but I'm going to have to assume that we won't hear anything at all until they come up with an excuse and get their story straight.
With any luck the AP will write something informative about it, but maybe they'll be kicked out.
The discussion for events happening today has been moved onto its own thread:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/e-day-thread-rossis-1-mw-e-cat-plant-tested-by-first-customer/
PES Network is going to be tweeting about it:
https://twitter.com/#!/PESNetwork
Prepare for some real-time cognative dissonance from Rossi et al.
Stickley reads like Kurk Vonnegut Jr. That provided an amusing image.
It's not a timeline, each handset's bar starts at its launch. The last iPhone 2G update was three years after it launched (iOS 3.1.3.)
The Galaxy series are listed as the T-Mobile, Sprint whatever.
It doesn't list anything that came out after 2010.
Perforating the rock layer above a giant chamber of pressurised magma does not strike me as particularly safe.
as if people with big budgets will solve this problem where people with big *brains* have been working on for ages.
The fund will provide research money to those big brains, so that they can keep doing their brain thing in an increasingly sterile funding environment. It's not startup money.
I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do?
And this funding drive will interfere with their ability to continue that research how, exactly? If you don't fund this research, the outcome is "whatever private comes up with", and if you do fund this research, the outcome is "whatever private comes up with, plus better solar". That seems like a gain to me.
So you think the DOE should distribute research funds on the time-tested "throw the money into the air and see how much people can catch" approach?
In my understanding, there are no problems of this kind to solve in geothermal energy. Drilling is well developed, heat exchange too. There's no particular challenge in manufacturing that could make it a lot cheaper if solved. There's nothing much to throw money at.
Besides which, there's nothing to preclude a DOE funding project for geothermal research.
I would assume that a researcher whose job role is to create longer-lived photocells would not be able to simply fudge the projected useful life. It's kind of hard to get papers published when your methodology is "it lasts as long as I say so".