IKnowPhysics

Team Buyout 2014.

inorite?

A) If hydrogen is confined to a small enough area under extreme pressure, it would not do anything, unless: There is another compatible element present and enough energy present for chemical reactions to occur. Example: oxygen is also present, and there is enough energy present (heat) for combustion to occur. The Lawson criterion is met and nuclear fusion occurs. This is extremely difficult criterion to achieve, even when "confined to a small area and under extreme pressure," as is most often the goal of Inertial Confinement Fusion. This is not what is referred to as "cold fusion." B) Yes, if hydrogen were to undergo combustion in the presence of oxygen, water and excess energy would be the products. C) Generally, white phosphorus (P4) is highly flammable and pyrophoric (self-igniting) and will burn with exposure to air. It won't react with water (correction to above), which is why it's common to store it underwater to prevent spontaneous combustion.

What to do get when you take the fourier transform of this? THIS!

Just because I know some of us really enjoy watching Boston lose and their fans suffer, here's the Boston GDT on HF from last night's game Boston's up 2-1 late in the third on this page, B's fans are amped.

Then you too can have a career in fake science.

Thanks for posting, now I can post the rest. Yo mama. Just kidding. Still waiting. Not seeing. According to articles reporting on how "independent tests" were conducted, "To substantiate his discovery, Rossi has held E-Cat demonstrations for potential investors and members of the media. In videos of the demonstrations, the devices appear to be crudely built from plumbing supplies that can be bought in any hardware store. The reactor cores typically are covered up so no one can see the inner workings—the devices are essentially a black box with water going in and steam/hot water coming out. The lack of information about the E-Cat process is one reason many people are having trouble believing Rossi. Another is his checkered past." Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Thoroughness is highly contestable, especially considering the heat production is characterized as "anomalous." From that report: "indication of heat production from an unknown reaction primed by heat from resistor coils." They don't know what the ###### they're doing and they don't even try to explore/explain/characterize how it functions. They put energy into resistors and it gets hot, hotter than they think it should (and from reading the paper, they're not very good at calculating how hot it should get). That's all the report says. Make any ridiculous claim you like, and you can find an ###### somwhere with three letters after his name who's willing to be paid to say they think it's plausible. You said a lot more than that. And as soon as I see data published in a peer-reviewed journal, I'll examine it. But until that time, the snake oil salesman can pack up his cart and go to the next town.

Fusion Physicist here... Normally I'd just accept this, then politely correct you, admire that you're interested in sciency stuff, and move on. But you're daring to say that I'm closed-minded, when you admit you're swimming in a sea of ignorance. Not the case. For years I've studied physics in the both the laboratory and classroom, particularly the physics of nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion- that field that was supposed to have worked out back in the 1960s and continues to be 25+ years away. Try telling me that I have a closed mind when I work in that field for years to help make that pan out. So let me take the time to rip your post apart. Edit: there's so much ###### here, I repeatedly ran into the quote blocks limit. I haven't. I'm glad I haven't. I have colleagues that follow his claims, who are also open minded, but they also believe this guy is full of ######. Not because they're cold fusion haters, but because his methods have no scientific rigor, it appears that his results could be fabricated, and it's obvious that he doesn't allow for completely independent peer-review of his work. It's not the science that's ###### necessarily, it's THIS GUY. Belief has nothing to do with it. Examine evidence. Perform experiments. Analyze data. Make hyptoheses, then support them with evidence or prove them wrong. Also, not a real formula. Not even close to a real formula. Not even close to a real concept. This is all gibberish. WP isn't a catalyst in the presence of hydrogen, it burns when in contact with oxygen (gaseous oxygen and oxygen in the presence of water); this combustion does not create high enough energy density to promote nuclear reactions. A "supernova effect" isn't even a thing. Reactions are predictable or can be hypothesized. When they're not, they can be studied, characterized, and explained. Not a "who knows" type of situation. There are unexplained in phenomena in physics. There are discoveries yet to be made and understanding yet to be found. The field isn't dead. That's pretty clear. Good luck with the faith-based advancement of technology. The people you just described were renaissance scientists that believed science and math could explain everything, opposite of your previous statement. They were called heretics by those who believed in faith-related explanations of how things work. They were often arrested, excommunicated, tortured, or hanged. So in our society, scientists and mathematicians constructed the scientific method, a well-founded, logical approach to understanding our world. And it works. To abandon the scientific method is to abandon the logic we use to describe our world.

It would be difficult to see him flipflopping on that one. He does have character and that was a big part of his life.

Case dismissed.

Not yet, no. Not in amounts that produced a net gain of energy. Fusion at "cold" temperatures does actually exist, however, in the form of pyroelectric fusion, but this requires ridiculously more energy than is gained. It can be used to make neutrons (for other physics experiments and maybe one day medical stuff).

That's a Gordon Lightfoot original, son.

I was thinking Ronald Reagan, a la "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR. DOWN. THIS. WALL."

Haha, I've actually talked to the ###### that sell that ###### at car shows (one of my friends is a dumbass, he was sort of interested in it, I had to take the five minutes to explain why it was stupid). The sales guy was happy to try to explain to me how it worked until he deduced that I had any inkling of knowledge about chemistry and internal combustion, then he immediately stopped talking to me and wouldn't answer any more of my questions.

Physicist here. Andrea Rossi's an A1 scumbag. He's a snakeoil salesman that spent a few years in the klink for tax fraud after he sunk his company by dumping hazardous waste into the environment. His cold fusion sideshows are unverifiable garbage because he refuses to let his work be peer-reviewed in the name of protecting his "intellectual property." For a soapbox, he owns and publishes "The Journal of Nuclear Physics," a blog meant to resemble a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is neither peer-reviewed nor scientific. He is the L. Ron Hubbard of physics and he's trying to sell Dianetics. And just so there's some redeaming value to this thread, I'll add a pretty good read for those to enjoy reading science, even especially if it's only in the news once in a while. Highly recommended: http://quackfiles.bl...us-science.html

Cough Ehrhoff cough.

Quiznos was closed to so I had to go to Subway. #firstworldproblems

As a player, I can imagine being in Keith's position. If I'm trying to pick up my glove and someone (intentionally or not) attempts a slash on my bare hand, if I'm not friends with the guy, my first thought might be "intent to injure," and then I easily see myself taking a shot at the guy. I don't personally think I'd tomahawk the guy, but in an emotional game and a moment where there's any perception of intent to injure behind the play, it's easy to see someone lose control for a split second. And that's what happened to Keith. He snapped for a half second, got his stick up, and it cost him four minutes. At the end of the day, actions are actions, and rules are rules. The move was provoked and undertandable, but not free from penalty. If Carter contacted Keith's bare hand, that should've been two minutes also. Should Keith be suspended? I don't think he should be.

Agreed. Even from a graphics design standpoint, they're not very well executed. They took the styling of the "D" in the "Dallas Stars" word mark and applied not to the outside shape of the "D" in their primary logo, but to the inside shape. And the inside shape is just black. On a very detailed level, it's confused. The simplicity's nice, and it could have some longevity (like the Canuck "C" rink), but the secondary logo with circular word banner is definitely overplayed this decade- mainly because it's used in markets where people don't know what team the logo is for (Florida, Columbus, et al).

I enjoyed this.

I get the impression that someone would pitch this idea for any move Regier made, in perpetuity, until he no longer works here.

I don't despise Regier. I also don't project the vitriolic routine of this message board onto the beliefs of the broader Sabres Nation, even if it's re-shouted by the yokels at TBN. Who would I be to put words in another fan's mouth, let alone "Sabres fans in general" or "in their entirety" ?

Pile it on after Ruff's already been fired. Classy.

Absolutely is. Feaster is one. Mike Gillis is climbing fast. Doug MacLean must have been way up there. I'm sure Garth Snow doesn't have many friends. And that's just NHL GMs, not even beginning to consider other positions (Charles Wang) and other sports (Alex Rodriguez). Ridiculous to think there's not.

I would t wat all day for the Sabres. It's t wat, right?