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.
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.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
