Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The E-Cat has been replicated?

animpossibleinvention.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#51

Post by aetherson »

guscost wrote: post #26
api wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EmDrive is actually less physically plausible than the E-Cat if you get into it, since reactionless propulsion is identical to perpetual motion and/or infinite energy. Someone had a nice explanation of this over on Reddit but I don't have a link handy. Basically if momentum is not conserved then you can build kinetic energy without bound on finite power or something like that. The only way the EmDrive could work…

Awesome, thanks for the info. While I wouldn't be that surprised if the EmDrive works by undiscovered spooky action at a distance, if it works by violating conservation of momentum that would be bonkers.

Undiscovered spooky action at a distance to what? Even assuming you can shuttle momentum around from particle A to particle C that is substantially distant, what exactly are particles C? Does the EM drive choose the distant particles to transfer momentum to on the basis of what would be the most convenient for the experimenter? What is the mechanism by which putting microwaves in a funny-shaped container creates a momentum-transfering bond from that container to unknown other masses? Does this totally unexplained effect have, you know, a range? If so, is that range remotely realistic? If so, we don't actually have a reaction-mass-less drive, do we?

For bonus points, answer all these questions in ways that do not create a privileged frame of reference and thus break special relativity.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#52

Post by Recurecur »

mikeash wrote: post #13
readams wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually doesn't work, as there's a long history of people hiding batteries in their fake overunity devices. You can also have devices that might have other forms of stored energy that might be slowly depleted, such as mechanical strain being relieved, chemical reactions taking place, etc. You can also have devices that work by taking advantage of solar power in a subtle way or other external effects.

This thing is supposedly a fusion device. Run it until you've drawn more energy than could possibly be provided by burning an equivalent mass of hydrogen, and then you know it must be a nuclear effect. If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device. I can accept that such a test may not be totally 100% definitive. But if the device is real then it could definitely pass. The fact that they'r…

Hey Mike, a few things. First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. The science is in an early state, but looks to be very promising!

http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21...

Here's a pithy excerpt:

"Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics models: the Widom-Larsen Theory. The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Theory is believed to be the best explanation of the LENR process because it does not require new physics models. The phenomenon now called LENR requires relatively low temperatures or energy stimulus to initiate reactions. It is a form of nuclear energy which has conservatively been estimated to have over 4,000 times the energy density of chemical energy sources and potentially much more."

The non-conservative estimate is up to 1,000,000 times the energy density of chemical reactions. :-)

Imagine - virtually unlimited, guilt-free energy. It would change everything! Flying cars, colonization of the solar system...no limits!

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#53

Post by Oletros »

leaveyou wrote: post #34
tankenmate wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes me most happy here is that they are releasing what they claim is a rather complete "recipe"; this should hopefully lead to independent replication, hopefully by sceptics and hopefully many more replications.

"It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to. There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news and if everything goes well I think we should probably dig up all those excessively negative and accusative posts and ask for a follow up. I still remember those "This is a scam ! Rossi is a fraud !" even if no one was asked to invest and no one complained of be…

> "It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to.

Let's start the conspiracy theories

> There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news

Strange? When there is no single proof of it, even by the ones stating that it works and there is no single plausible theory then there is nothing strange in the negative comments about that

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#54

Post by leaveyou »

Oletros wrote: post #53
leaveyou wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to. There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news and if everything goes well I think we should probably dig up all those excessively negative and accusative posts and ask for a follow up. I still remember those "This is a scam ! Rossi is a fraud !" even if no one was asked to invest and no one complained of be…

> "It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to. Let's start the conspiracy theories > There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news Strange? When there is no single proof of it, even by the ones stating that it works and there is no single plausible theory then there is nothing strange in the negative comments about that

yep, denial mode. there is no proof. no one is credible. it's a scam. there is no theory. things didn't happen before we had theory for them. what a bunch of scientific bigots.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#55

Post by dcvuob »

Recurecur wrote: post #52
mikeash wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thing is supposedly a fusion device. Run it until you've drawn more energy than could possibly be provided by burning an equivalent mass of hydrogen, and then you know it must be a nuclear effect. If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device. I can accept that such a test may not be totally 100% definitive. But if the device is real then it could definitely pass. The fact that they'r…

Hey Mike, a few things. First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. The science is in an early state, but looks to be very promising! http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21... Here's a pithy excerpt: "Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics…

The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works.

Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available.

Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real., is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about aircraft.

You are either scamming or are being scammed. In the latter case (and I'm trying to help you here), please make an effort with some serious research and re-evalaute your opinions.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#56

Post by Oletros »

leaveyou wrote: post #54
Oletros wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to. Let's start the conspiracy theories > There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news Strange? When there is no single proof of it, even by the ones stating that it works and there is no single plausible theory then there is nothing strange in the negative comments about that

yep, denial mode. there is no proof. no one is credible. it's a scam. there is no theory. things didn't happen before we had theory for them. what a bunch of scientific bigots.

Yes, or it is a conspiracy or people is in denial.

How luck we are for having people like you that can see the light.

Time to move on and stop wasting time with such nonsense

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#57

Post by drjesusphd »

leaveyou wrote: post #34
tankenmate wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes me most happy here is that they are releasing what they claim is a rather complete "recipe"; this should hopefully lead to independent replication, hopefully by sceptics and hopefully many more replications.

"It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to. There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news and if everything goes well I think we should probably dig up all those excessively negative and accusative posts and ask for a follow up. I still remember those "This is a scam ! Rossi is a fraud !" even if no one was asked to invest and no one complained of be…

> if everything goes well I think we should probably dig up all those excessively negative and accusative posts and ask for a follow up.

Go right ahead.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#58

Post by drjesusphd »

brudgers wrote: post #46
aetherson wrote: post #12

I'm genuinely curious as to why HN so regularly has articles about various "wouldn't it be great if this worked but obviously it never will" scams/inventions/measurement errors on the front page. Is it because there is a contingent of HN voters who are true believers in this stuff? Is it "point at the silly people and laugh"? Is it some kind of attempt to make a meta point about credulity or discuss scams or somethin…

In 1982, I read Herman Kahn's The Next 200 Years and got pumped about power from nuclear fusion. The tokamak was hot and the wisdom at the time was that it was 20 years away. I talked with my Dad, he said fusion power had been 20 years away since he was also 17. It's still looks like it's 20 years away. My point isn't that practical fusion power is a scam. But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality…

> But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality than cold fusion

The figure of merit is Q, the fusion gain per input energy. For cold fusion, this figure is infintessimal; for lasers I think it's about 0.001; Tokamaks have reached Q=0.7. Not to mention, theoretical break-even ("effective Q">1) was achieved in Japan, but they do not have access to Tritium, which is the only reason it wasn't "real" breakeven.

Since your dad was a teenager, fusion efficiency has outpaced Moore's law for microelectronics. Real progress is being made.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#59

Post by brudgers »

drjesusphd wrote: post #58
brudgers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1982, I read Herman Kahn's The Next 200 Years and got pumped about power from nuclear fusion. The tokamak was hot and the wisdom at the time was that it was 20 years away. I talked with my Dad, he said fusion power had been 20 years away since he was also 17. It's still looks like it's 20 years away. My point isn't that practical fusion power is a scam. But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality…

> But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality than cold fusion The figure of merit is Q, the fusion gain per input energy. For cold fusion, this figure is infintessimal; for lasers I think it's about 0.001; Tokamaks have reached Q=0.7. Not to mention, theoretical break-even ("effective Q">1) was achieved in Japan, but they do not have access to Tritium, which is the only reason it wasn't "real" break…

Dad is pushing 80. Entire scientific careers have come and gone funded by many billions in public money. My definition of success is fusion powering my toaster. That's the one that was putched all those years ago and when he and then I were kids. Not getting funded or a paper accepted.

Moore's law lives behind a touch screen in my pocket doing useful work...or less useful work such as this comment.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#60

Post by guscost »

aetherson wrote: post #51
guscost wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome, thanks for the info. While I wouldn't be that surprised if the EmDrive works by undiscovered spooky action at a distance, if it works by violating conservation of momentum that would be bonkers.

Undiscovered spooky action at a distance to what ? Even assuming you can shuttle momentum around from particle A to particle C that is substantially distant, what exactly are particles C? Does the EM drive choose the distant particles to transfer momentum to on the basis of what would be the most convenient for the experimenter? What is the mechanism by which putting microwaves in a funny-shaped container creates a m…

I think I'll wait for more conclusive results before starting work on these questions ;)
Post reply on HN