noobs

[john & jean 37]

I hate the noobs in reality away from the FORUMS. People who don't comprehend the basics of science wants to implement creationism inside the science curriculum like creating intelligent design. Science uses has a cycle like obsever, hypothesis, experiments, then theory.....It goes through that cycle. Intelligent follows observing, hypothesiss, (skips experiments), then goto theory. It doesn't even follow the scientific method.

makes about as much sense as cold fusion????

[Niels Bohr 72]

I hate the noobs in reality away from the FORUMS. People who don't comprehend the basics of science wants to implement creationism inside the science curriculum like creating intelligent design. Science uses has a cycle like obsever, hypothesis, experiments, then theory.....It goes through that cycle. Intelligent follows observing, hypothesiss, (skips experiments), then goto theory. It doesn't even follow the scientific method.

makes about as much sense as cold fusion????

Actually cold fusion was a little different. This guy was tainting his experiments. Cold fusion got rejected because someone found out, and because nobody could duplicate his results.

[john & jean 37]

I hate the noobs in reality away from the FORUMS. People who don't comprehend the basics of science wants to implement creationism inside the science curriculum like creating intelligent design. Science uses has a cycle like obsever, hypothesis, experiments, then theory.....It goes through that cycle. Intelligent follows observing, hypothesiss, (skips experiments), then goto theory. It doesn't even follow the scientific method.

makes about as much sense as cold fusion????

Actually cold fusion was a little different. This guy was tainting his experiments. Cold fusion got rejected because someone found out, and because nobody could duplicate his results.

very similar to the ####### the person refered to in this post has made himself famous for

[Niels Bohr 72]

[john & jean 37]

the guilty party has been warned in open forums,also has been reported.

Surely you don't mean... this ?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2892618

Shocked! Shocked, I say! Officer - arrest these men! There is spurious advice being meted out in VJ forums!

(with apologies to Captain Renault)

an excellent place to use this rarely used pic

that needs to be added to the emoticons!!!!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I hate the noobs in reality away from the FORUMS. People who don't comprehend the basics of science wants to implement creationism inside the science curriculum like creating intelligent design. Science uses has a cycle like obsever, hypothesis, experiments, then theory.....It goes through that cycle. Intelligent follows observing, hypothesiss, (skips experiments), then goto theory. It doesn't even follow the scientific method.

makes about as much sense as cold fusion????

Rogue and Niels Bohr must be homies.

[Dakine 26]

the guilty party has been warned in open forums,also has been reported.

oops

haole your pm is not active???

I guess not.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Rogue and Niels Bohr must be homies.

Mister_Bill and intelligent design must be homies

[scandal 951]

I hate the noobs in reality away from the FORUMS. People who don't comprehend the basics of science wants to implement creationism inside the science curriculum like creating intelligent design. Science uses has a cycle like obsever, hypothesis, experiments, then theory.....It goes through that cycle. Intelligent follows observing, hypothesiss, (skips experiments), then goto theory. It doesn't even follow the scientific method.

makes about as much sense as cold fusion????

Actually cold fusion was a little different. This guy was tainting his experiments. Cold fusion got rejected because someone found out, and because nobody could duplicate his results.

Just to straighten out the record a little bit.

By "This guy" you are referring to Pons+ Fleischmann who made news in the 1980s with a supposed "table top" fusion reaction. This was astonishing because they were both reputable physicists who had many solid research papers in peer reviewed journals. They utterly destroyed their own reputations by publishing a result which indicated that they had succeeded in producing a controlled exothermic hydrogen fusion reaction at low temperatures. This was quickly debunked since they had faked it.

The concept of cold fusion however does "make sense", it's not quackery, and is actively pursued. It's unlikely we'll ever have a table-top reactor. But it's certainly conceivable to have a controlled exothermic hydrogen reactor, at a scale comparable to existing fission reactors. That's not science fiction, it's just many years into the future, best case scenario.

Fission reactors work on the principle of splitting a heavy nucleus (typically U235) into daughter products + energy. If the reaction is uncontrolled, then it's possible to rapidly release a lot of energy - hence a bomb. If the reaction is controlled, then it is possible to release the energy at a slow steady rate, which becomes useful in a power plant. The heat given off by controlled fission reaction is converted to steam to drive turbines. If the reaction ever gets "out of control", you have the possibility of a China-syndrome (Chernobyl) reaction.

Fusion reactions are the process not of splitting nuclei, but rather fusing them together. Hydrogen fusion involves binding together H nuclei to form He, which is exothermic (produces energy). We have no problem creating uncontrolled fusion reactions - we've been doing that since the 1950s - they're called H-bombs. The holy-grail has been to produce a controlled, sustained, fusion reactor which would allow the H + H -> He process to be done at a slow, gradual rate useful for energy plants. Pons & Fleischmann said they had found it, they were wrong. Others are still working on the problem. It would be a very exciting result because the raw materials for fusion are basically just seawater (you need 'heavy' hydrogen - deuterium or tritium - to drive the reaction, which is found in small ppm ratios in water). Wouldn't it be great to one day remove our dependence on coal and petroleum and 'burn' seawater instead?

About this:

Science uses has a cycle like obsever, hypothesis, experiments, then theory.....It goes through that cycle.

Well, yeah, sort of but it's more sophisticated than that.

The structure of the scientific method is itself a field of study which has received considerable attention, and is subject to ongoing debate.

Your model (observe, hypothesis, verify/falsify) is pretty much the view of the Falsification model of the scientific method, popularized by Karl Popper. It has adherents but most would agree that it is somewhat naive and doesn't really explain how scientists truly operate. The more modern theories, attributable to philosophers of science such as Thomas Khun and Imre Lakatos are based more on paradigms of science and paradigm-breaking revolutions. The idea here is that practicioners working in the field just plod along verifying and corroborating results consistent with the overarching theory. And only at occasional inflection points is there a revolutionary breakout from an old model (e.g. classical physics) to a new one (e.g. quantum). Even when that break happens, it's not like everybody instantly jumps on board and immediately moves to a new theory. Rather, there's controversy and adherents who refuse to make the shift for some time. In fact it typically takes a generation of scientists conditioned to a previous model to retire/die off, and a younger generation to grow into the field, before it becomes widely adopted.

What does ANY of this have to do with immigration board noobs?????

[Nagishkaw 510]

Nothing.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I highly doubt that cold fusion is even possible. The NSF have not granted any more funding to cold fusion research. They have been in denial for a long time after those two. I would be surprised if any future PH.D candidates are granted such research for the dissertation. ::

Fusion with the H-bomb do not work with room temperature. There's a detonator inside the bomb that induces the fusion by way of the fission done with the secondary warhead. We'll see if table-top fusion is even possible.

[scandal 951]

I highly doubt that cold fusion is even possible. The NSF have not granted any more funding to cold fusion research. They have been in denial for a long time after those two. I would be surprised if any future PH.D candidates are granted such research for the dissertation. ::

Fusion with the H-bomb do not work with room temperature. There's a detonator inside the bomb that induces the fusion by way of the fission done with the secondary warhead. We'll see if table-top fusion is even possible.

OK, let's try this again.

Read each word I wrote slowly, carefully:

It's unlikely we'll ever have a table-top reactor. But it's certainly conceivable to have a controlled exothermic hydrogen reactor, at a scale comparable to existing fission reactors.

The aim is NOT for table-top scale. We're not going to have fusion reactors in our garages. Of course Pons-Fleischmann were crackpots, that doesn't mean that fusion research has stopped dead in its tracks in 1989. The goal is large scale plants comparable in size to existing fission reactors. That is what I wrote and nothing you have written disproves it.

The fact that small fission devices are used as the triggering mechanism in fusion bombs is true, but entirely immaterial and irrelevant to the quest for low-temperature fusion for power generation purposes.

And you are wrong that research on sustainable controlled exothermic fusion is not being pursued. From just a quick wiki fact-check, it's trivial to turn up this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

I would say that is pretty "real".

Scroll to the bottom of the wikipedia articles for external references to the journals and research activity in this field.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Cold Fusion: It’s Back–Just in Time for the Great Energy Debate

Wasn’t cold fusion supposed to be a myth? Apparently not—“60 Minutes” ran a story Sunday night arguing that so-called cold fusion is “hot again.”

The thrust of the “60 Minutes” piece is that laboratories around the world have managed to do what scientists could not in the wake of the now-infamous 1989 announcement of cold fusion: replicate the results.

Well, sort of anyway. Laboratories in the U.S., Italy, and Israel have all run experiments dunking palladium in deuterium and then zapping it with electric current. The promise of cold fusion is that that mix creates more energy than it consumes. The problem with cold fusion is nailing down if that’s true.

In the “60 Minutes” segment, even some skeptics of cold fusion, such as the University of Missouri’s vice chancellor Rob Duncan, come away convinced that excess heat is indeed being generated in the lab tests. The U.S. Navy has also apparently concluded that cold fusion works—in one test anyway.

Other long time critics, such as hydrogen-bomb architect Richard Garwin, insist people are still getting the measurements wrong. (Some folks suspect Dr. Garwin is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, after he apparently told the Pentagon that cold fusion does seem to work in the 1990s.)

One big problem: Nobody is exactly sure what kind of reaction takes place among the lattice-work structure of the palladium that would explain the seemingly miraculous creation of excess heat and energy. That makes is hard, if not impossible, to determine when or how much energy should be created. And even if several laboratories have replicated to different degrees the experiment, the amounts of energy never seem to be the same, giving more ammunition to critics and confounding cold-fusion boosters.

Still, as if regular nuclear power weren’t fodder enough for the energy debate, the revival of talk about cold fusion should get some vitriol flowing.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...-energy-debate/

[Niels Bohr 72]

Cold fusion and fusion is two different subjects.

[scandal 951]

Cold fusion and fusion is two different subjects.

is?

Whatever.

You know, my Dad, many years ago back in the late 60s, did his post-doc in High Energy physics at the Niels Bohr institute in Copenhagen. Consequently I spent the first year of my life in Denmark. Obviously I don't remember any of it and don't speak a word of Danish, having lived there between the ages of about 2 months and 12 months.

But every time I see your VJ login-name and avatar picture, read your posts regarding science, I feel kinda bad for the tarnish you put on good Dr. Bohr's reputation. Just saying.