Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why Cold Fusion (or something like it) Is Real (Score 2) 341

by geoskd (#48175735) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

If he finds someone that is willing to invest in his project, let it happen, and when the cold fusion device turns out to be a scam, let them report it to the police and trow him back in jail where he belongs. The best way to deal with a bluff is to call it, not argue about it.

The problem is that people like this undermine the public trust in science. That is a huge problem because it opens the door to allow an entire other set of charlatans into the picture. These other people gain traction only because the name of science has been tarnished as the provider of truth. Once this other group of people have the public ear, they start pushing all kinds of counter productive BS like creationism and other idiot dogma

Our governments need to assign science and all its keywords as trademarks to a standards body and give them full right to enforce. This will help to put an end to all of those deceitful commercials that begin with "scientifically proven to xxx". Joe Sixpack doesn't even understand how they're being lied to, or even that they are, and that failure to understand is in no small part due to the behavior of people like Rossi and his associates.

Comment: Re:Cold fusion - a hot mess (Score 2) 341

by geoskd (#48174065) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

Pressure is equivalent to temperature, one begets the other. Since all cases of observable fusion requires high pressure, explain to me how you are going to get the pressure without the temperature? Are you going to crazy glue the atoms together?

PV=nRT only means anything in regards to thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a statistical description of the behavior of large quantities of matter. All fusion physics is about the individual behavior of the elementary particles involved. Pressure and temperature are ways to achieve the desired proximity of the nuclei, but they are not the only ways.

Comment: Re:Why Cold Fusion (or something like it) Is Real (Score 5, Insightful) 341

by geoskd (#48173971) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

Only after you've isolated all the contributing factors involved so you can replicate them. So long as there are unknown factors influencing the outcome positive results will appear to happen at random. So long as verifiable transmutation is occasionally occurring *something* is clearly happening, the challenge is to figure out what is different between the experiments that work and the ones that don't. And from what I've heard it seems that certain sub-microscopic imperfections in the host material are likely at least one of the necessary preconditions. And those are damnably hard to replicate intentionally.

The most likely answer is that Rossi is cheating by feeding power into the machine in such a way as to feed more power in than is being reported by the instruments. If you follow some of the links in the attached article, you'll find a wonderful description of how to fool power metering equipment. The researchers could have easily ruled this out using a little subterfuge of their own. Had they built their own custom outlet with a hidden set of power meters placed on the upstream side of the plug, they could have guaranteed an accurate reading, and would have been able to compare that with the "official" reading. A significant mismatch would have proven willful deception on Rossi's part (thus proving the entire thing to be fraud). A match in readings would have verified experimentally that they were not being swindled in this particular respect. It would have been a simple way to gain further insight into Rossis device while allowing him the latitude to believe he is strictly controlling the experiment. (Give him every opportunity to cheat and think he will get away with it, while secretly checking up on his actions).

Sadly, The most likely answer to this riddle is that all of the so called researchers are complicit. They seem to get together regularly and try to figure out ways to make the "experiments" seem more valid while still allowing them to be gamed.


Hawking Radiation Mimicked In the Lab 64

Posted by samzenpus
from the old-bob dept.
Annanag writes *Nothing* escapes a black hole, right? Except 40 years ago Stephen Hawking threw a spanner in the works by suggesting that, courtesy of quantum mechanics, some light particles can actually break free of a black hole's massive pull. Then you have the tantalizing question of whether information can also escape, encoded in that so-called 'Hawking radiation'. The only problem being that no one has ever been able to detect Hawking radiation being emitted from a black hole. BUT a physicist has now come closer than ever before to creating an imitation of a black hole event horizon in the lab, opening up a potential avenue for investigating Hawking radiation and exploring how quantum mechanics and general relativity might be brought together.

Comment: Re:He tried patenting it... (Score 5, Interesting) 973

The reason he didn't describe how it works is almost certainly because IT DOESN'T WORK.

Funny but FTFA:

The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or âoefar more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.â

That pretty much puts an end to the "doesnt work" crap. As they stated, if it is a hoax, the guy has developed a device that can store and regurgitate energy with a far greater energy density than gasoline. If all it is, is a battery, then by itself it would be worth almost as much as cold fusion, as it can store and produce 600+ horsepower for an hour (1.5MW hours). Thats enough to move a typical passenger vehicle 300+ miles on a power supply the size of a stick of dynamite. If the guy had created a device, of any kind, that can do this, then he has no reason to try to swindle investors in a cold fusion scam, he going to be Elon Musks new best friend for life.

Comment: Re:Yes yes yes (Score 1) 405

just pick something with steady demand and limited supply.

every advance in technology raises the bar such that a larger percentage of the population is simply incapable of being trained to perform *any* needed labor function. Right now, the bar excludes a very small # (maybe 1% of the population). What happens when trucks drive themselves? Thats 3 million people who will go from earning ~40k / year to earning less than 20k per year. What happens when planes can fly themselves? What happens when being able to program a computer is a "base" skillset, that you cant be employed if you cant at least do that? I know a large number of people who will never be intelligent enough to handle tasks that require the same level of abilities as programming. What do we do with them? Darwin them off?

Comment: Re:Yes yes yes (Score 1) 405

by geoskd (#48088865) Attached to: One In Three Jobs Will Be Taken By Software Or Robots By 2025, Says Gartner

Sure, eventually we might not need plumbers, or welders, or A/C repairmen, or someone t give a sponge bath, but by then we'll have the luxury to carry 20%, likely 80%, of the population with need of their labor to provide for us all - work will be a matter of psychological health, not productivity eventually. But I won't live to see it; that's not this generation's problem to solve.

We already carry close to 20% of the population, when you count forced early retirement, underemployed and chronic unemployment. The tea party plays on this very "welfare state" concept to draw in working class Americans. How will that play out as the unemployment numbers increase? Capitalism will not / can not tolerate unemployment in large amounts. It causes the value of labor to asymptotically approach zero due to the law of supply and demand.

Comment: Re:Yes yes yes (Score 2) 405

The end of mindless menial labor is a good thing.

Only if our economic systems are capable of handling that set of circumstances. What should the roughly 20% of people who are below 85 IQ do to survive? They simply will never be able to handle jobs requiring more than simple manual labor, so when those jobs are gone, how do they earn a living? Welfare? Charity? They starve to death?

I could almost even live with any of those options as long as it was on the table for general public discussion and debate. As it stands now, the politicians treat it like social security: a third rail of politics...

Comment: Re:Clearly not... (Score 2) 481

by geoskd (#48067859) Attached to: Is an Octopus Too Smart For Us To Eat?

Would you initaite interspecies contact with a species that wonders whether you go with white wine or red? Would you invade a world where the inhabitants are as likely to reach for a jar of brown sauce as a weapon?

It'll be pretty obvious when any other species on this planet becomes advanced enough to be accepted as intelligent enough to warrant the same protections as society affords to humans. That species will be making their own tools. I can teach a cat to open a door. Beyond it being cute, it really doesn't require that much intelligence...

Comment: Re:People (Score 1) 481

by geoskd (#48067829) Attached to: Is an Octopus Too Smart For Us To Eat?

The latter is what provides the ethical argument for treating anything that we can consider "near" human as human for various purposes such as whether to eat them. If we're so considerate of ourselves that cannibalism is usually considered a grievous crime, then maybe we should be a bit more considerate of animals that approach us in intellect.

We don't eat people because of the implied threat from society. Society places value on human life, and works to prevent cannibalism as such. If the animals organized such that there was a threat of meaningful consequences of eating animals, then we would stop eating animals. As long as the animals are not smart enough to organize their own defense, then I'll be damned if I'm going to stop eating them, much less defend them from others.

Comment: Re:Why do people still care about C++ for kernel d (Score 1) 365

by geoskd (#48064733) Attached to: Object Oriented Linux Kernel With C++ Driver Support

If you spent half the time perusing the spec than you spent duplicating the STL, you would not find the behaviour "unexpected", you'd save time and other people would find it easier to follow your code.


I had been away from C++ for a little over a decade (got suckered into web design among other things). When I came back to it two years ago, I was pleasantly surprised at the improvements in the language. Specifically, the STL improvements, and the Boost libraries made light work of projects that used to take forever to code and debug. Even the string class I found to be indispensable, even if its interactions with non-c++ code is less than optimal, it still beats C-style string manipulation by leaps and bounds.

Having used Java, PHP and Perl in the mean time, I found C++11 to have incorporated many of the best features of these other languages without loosing much of the performance that was the reason I had gone back to C/C++ for this project.

Comment: Re:Rent a Tesla for $1 (Score 2, Interesting) 335

by geoskd (#48010917) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

You forget that this is a democracy. If the laws are wrong, petulance isn't really the answer.

We don't live in a democracy, and never have. Until and unless we have a real democracy, "By the people, for the people and of the people" is just a pretty fiction designed to keep the sheeple in line. The only way this will ever change is through aggressive "petulance"

Comment: Re:Obj-C (Score 1) 316

by geoskd (#48008719) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Swift Or Objective-C As New iOS Developer's 1st Language?

Plus it's not like C++/ObjC have no runtime. For example, if you don't have the right VC++ redistributable installed, you'll get nowhere trying to run C++ application compiled in VC++. Their runtime just doesn't include a JIT compilation stage (for better or worse)

If your only experience with C / C++ is MS VSxxxx, its no wonder you hate the thing so much. The MS tool chains have never been standards compliant, and they have absolutely zero qualms about breaking their customers legacy code just for random changes. When are developers going to learn their lesson and stop relying on MS for anything they don't have to. You end up locked to MS and they can do whatever they want to you (including large scale cash withdrawal).

That having been said, c++11 is actually a rather more modernized language, but you can bet MS will never fully or properly support it. They prefer to add their own idiot solutions that lock people to MS. A good example of this is the TerminateThread function in VC++. On the surface, this function seems very useful if you have no idea how multithreaded system should work. There is no equivalent in C++11, and in fact, POSIX has no real support for the concept at all. The reason is that the functionality that this provides is a monumentally bad idea, and there are absolutely zero situations where using this would be a better / easier/ faster solution than the traditional multi threading algorithms. In fact, this function is extremely difficult to use in a way that doesn't cause all kind of program stability problems, and if a programmer is even slightly tempted to use it, odds are they simply don't understand the implications, and should seek outside help understanding multi threading.

Microsoft VC++ has thousands of little land mines like that, making it a horrible platform to use as a basis for any project. Never minding vendor lock in, the development environment itself is badly flawed.

All warranty and guarantee clauses become null and void upon payment of invoice.