Is water a mystery?

[Beto]

Up until recently I was pretty sure we knew everything there was to know about water, and that it held no mystery. I then came across some statements concerning water, by Mark Germine:

"According to the laws of science, as we understand them, water shouldn’t exist, at least in its current form."

"The energy of water is currently inexplicable. It holds far more heat than it should, and it has a far greater surface tension than it should. Where is this energy?"

"There is only one place that is large enough to hold the energy of water. It is the same place that holds the energy of the Unified Field. It is the quantum vacuum. It is here that the energy of creation is hidden."

I also recall reading something about nanobubbles that aren't supposed to exist because they defy known laws of physics, and yet not only exist but are relatively stable.

Add to the mix the mind-boggling experiments of Masaru Emoto, and how the molecular structure of water is affected by our consciousness, and I'm left wondering how the origin of life can be discussed without taking into account the conundrum that is water.

Question for debate: Does it make sense to address issues like the origin of life or evolution, when we can't even properly explain water? Is it like trying to explain how a computer works without knowing what "digital" is?

[QED]

Have you heard about the MIT ICCF-10 Cold Fusion Open Demonstration? I think it was a really exciting event.

Sure, back in 2003 it might have seemed that limitless free energy was just around the corner. But look at what's not happened in the intervening four years. I don't think you got my point about scalability: if there is ever a measurable power gain, then simple arithmetic tells us that, by daisy-chaining outputs to inputs, any amount of energy can be squeezed out of, well, almost anything. That would make for the kind of demo that couldn't be ignored -- now wouldn't it?

[Beto]

Have you heard about the MIT ICCF-10 Cold Fusion Open Demonstration? I think it was a really exciting event.

Sure, back in 2003 it might have seemed that limitless free energy was just around the corner. But look at what's not happened in the intervening four years. I don't think you got my point about scalability: if there is ever a measurable power gain, then simple arithmetic tells us that, by daisy-chaining outputs to inputs, any amount of energy can be squeezed out of, well, almost anything. That would make for the kind of demo that couldn't be ignored -- now wouldn't it?

Are you referring to the errors in calorimetry addressed in 2004, as per the wiki article? Would you pinpoint the unsubstantiated claims in the article excerpt that I posted, so that I may google for sources?

[QED]

Have you heard about the MIT ICCF-10 Cold Fusion Open Demonstration? I think it was a really exciting event.

Sure, back in 2003 it might have seemed that limitless free energy was just around the corner. But look at what's not happened in the intervening four years. I don't think you got my point about scalability: if there is ever a measurable power gain, then simple arithmetic tells us that, by daisy-chaining outputs to inputs, any amount of energy can be squeezed out of, well, almost anything. That would make for the kind of demo that couldn't be ignored -- now wouldn't it?

Are you referring to the errors in calorimetry addressed in 2004, as per the wiki article? Would you pinpoint the unsubstantiated claims in the article excerpt that I posted, so that I may google for sources?

No. I'm trying to explain why we don't need to have arguments over fine details to do with measurement. I seem to recall a similar crop of arguments breaking out over the Steorn's "free energy" device. The argument was something to do with ambient lighting present at the demo.

Think of it like this: I bring you a black box and a couple of power meters. One meter measures electrical power (Volts X amps) going into the "input" and another measures power coming out and going into a load. Now if I claim that less power goes in than comes out, you might have to be very careful about other environmental factors -- particularly if the apparent gain is very small. This is the borderline level where, as far as I can see, all the arguments break out.

Now if my black box really does produce an energy gain (or free energy) albeit small and hard to discern then, as the inventor, I should easily be able to find ways to amplify this by linking similar black boxes together to achieve an incontrovertible result. That much is automatically implied in the claim. Note that I'm not required to innovate further, just repeat my results (make more identical black boxes). Can't you see why the principle involved in this makes it silly for there to be such arguments one way or another?

[Beto]

Have you heard about the MIT ICCF-10 Cold Fusion Open Demonstration? I think it was a really exciting event.

Sure, back in 2003 it might have seemed that limitless free energy was just around the corner. But look at what's not happened in the intervening four years. I don't think you got my point about scalability: if there is ever a measurable power gain, then simple arithmetic tells us that, by daisy-chaining outputs to inputs, any amount of energy can be squeezed out of, well, almost anything. That would make for the kind of demo that couldn't be ignored -- now wouldn't it?

Are you referring to the errors in calorimetry addressed in 2004, as per the wiki article? Would you pinpoint the unsubstantiated claims in the article excerpt that I posted, so that I may google for sources?

No. I'm trying to explain why we don't need to have arguments over fine details to do with measurement. I seem to recall a similar crop of arguments breaking out over the Steorn's "free energy" device. The argument was something to do with ambient lighting present at the demo.

Think of it like this: I bring you a black box and a couple of power meters. One meter measures electrical power (Volts X amps) going into the "input" and another measures power coming out and going into a load. Now if I claim that less power goes in than comes out, you might have to be very careful about other environmental factors -- particularly if the apparent gain is very small. This is the borderline level where, as far as I can see, all the arguments break out.

Now if my black box really does produce an energy gain (or free energy) albeit small and hard to discern then, as the inventor, I should easily be able to find ways to amplify this by linking similar black boxes together to achieve an incontrovertible result. That much is automatically implied in the claim. Note that I'm not required to innovate further, just repeat my results (make more identical black boxes). Can't you see why the principle involved in this makes it silly for there to be such arguments one way or another?

But look, you have a certain set-up that doesn't produce an excess energy output. You change some known variables, concentrations, alloys, voltage, etc. You reach a configuration that does produce an excess energy output. This is what has been done many times over, altering the configurations of the devices, finding optimal set-up, keeping environmental variables as constant as possible. You're talking about very small gains, but I don't think this is the case anymore, and I guess neither does the US Navy or Mitsubishi.

[Undertow]

So the general theme here seems to be we can't explain everything about something basic, therefore everything dependant on that which we can not fully explain can not reliably be explained.

(1) Well, if you want to generalize, I guess that would be a fair assumption. Quite logical if you ask me.

Based on this reasoning and the fact that we're not all knowing, infalliable beings, perhaps we should throw out the concept of science entirely.

(2) I get the impression, from you and Cathar, that I come across as trying to discredit science altogether, but I fail to see where I did this. My point was just that knowledge of classical mechanics has evolved to a point where it becomes intrinsically connected with the quantum world, and we seem to keep trying to explain evolution and the origin of life solely based on classical mechanics. I realize there are exceptions, but I feel the general consensus is to stick to CM.

Of course I'm not saying we should throw out the concept of science entirely. I realize generalization makes for an easy reply to "spice up" a debate, though it's usually unfair. Knowing myself, it certainly is in this case.

(3) At this point I'm being very specific. I'm wondering if anyone feels that a minor lack of knowledge concerning water, being intrinsically connected with the origin of life and evolution (and I think everyone agrees with that), can result in completely erroneous theories on the origin of life and evolution. Again, there's no reason to assume I think we shouldn't theorize altogether. Like I said in another thread, I think reasoning in itself is most important, regardless of how accurate it is.

(1) Then everything we produce is an unreliable result. I tend to disagree when I look at the world around me. If you want something infallible, obviously science is not the way to go. But reliable? I think the results over the centuries speak for themselves. But on a purely logical standpoint, everything we produce is an unreliable result, hence why science should be, and is, subject to change, necessarily repeatable and falsifiable.

(2) Apologies, I just think what you're arguing here has some logical truth to it yet it seems to be negligent of past results, if past results are part of how you'd like to determine the reliability of something. If you argue that evolution is unreliable because it's based on incomplete knowlegde, then logically, you should refer to all results of science as unreliable because all rely on incomplete knowledge. There is no such thing as 'complete knowledge'.

(3) Short answer is yes, I agree (I hope you're not just singling out evolution here by the way, see number (2)). It would be rather narrow and bigoted of me to say that evolution is not prone to being entirely disproven because it's a falsifiable theory based on falsifiable knowledge just like any other, so I won't. Of course you need to be careful so as not to make this discussion an excuse for creationists to argue that evolution should be thrown out. At present it's the most parsimonious, data encompassing, tried and tested theory for the origin of species we have. In the future, it could be falsified and a new theory take it's place. So be it. If we have it all wrong right now and the gods are laughing at us, so be it. As long as we get closer and closer to the x axis of truth riding along the asymptote as we reach infinity, I'm not complaining.

[QED]

Now if my black box really does produce an energy gain (or free energy) albeit small and hard to discern then, as the inventor, I should easily be able to find ways to amplify this by linking similar black boxes together to achieve an incontrovertible result. That much is automatically implied in the claim. Note that I'm not required to innovate further, just repeat my results (make more identical black boxes). Can't you see why the principle involved in this makes it silly for there to be such arguments one way or another?

But look, you have a certain set-up that doesn't produce an excess energy output. You change some known variables, concentrations, alloys, voltage, etc. You reach a configuration that does produce an excess energy output.

Allegedly

This is what has been done many times over, altering the configurations of the devices, finding optimal set-up, keeping environmental variables as constant as possible. You're talking about very small gains, but I don't think this is the case anymore, and I guess neither does the US Navy or Mitsubishi.

First, please note that I'm not necessarily saying there can't be such a thing as "free energy". What I'm trying to get over to you is why it would be silly for there to be any disagreement if a way to acquire it had been developed. I'm sure by now that you understand my argument: when we're talking about barely indiscernible gains we can continue to argue if there really is a signal among the noise. Some problems are like this -- Astronomy springs to mind. Limiting factors due to materials, the Earth's atmosphere and so on, mean that we can't keep on scaling-up telescopes to see fainter and fainter objects. Even then, there are some clever ways to get around the limitations to a degree. But the point is, scaling doesn't help increase the signal to noise ratio.

But if a free-energy device can be brought inside a conference hall (typically they seem to fit on a table) then scaling is not a practical limitation so the demo that could be put on is one that would be incontrovertible e.g. the equivalent of a machine flying around a car-park all year. I know you probably think that's asking too much of the current research, but it's a simple arithmetic consequence of the claim. Using the most appropriate series/parallel configuration with feedback, what's to stop the gain being amplified to "unquestionable" amounts? Only the thermodynamic losses we know about already.

If the Navy or Mitsubishi were politically minded to prove the principle to the world they certainly wouldn't have to do so on the back of ambiguous evidence of the kind I've seen so far.

[Beto]

Now if my black box really does produce an energy gain (or free energy) albeit small and hard to discern then, as the inventor, I should easily be able to find ways to amplify this by linking similar black boxes together to achieve an incontrovertible result. That much is automatically implied in the claim. Note that I'm not required to innovate further, just repeat my results (make more identical black boxes). Can't you see why the principle involved in this makes it silly for there to be such arguments one way or another?

But look, you have a certain set-up that doesn't produce an excess energy output. You change some known variables, concentrations, alloys, voltage, etc. You reach a configuration that does produce an excess energy output.

Allegedly

Remember what you said about linking black boxes and adding tiny amounts of energy to produce something noticeable? Something I find rather interesting, is the fact that in an experiment with multiple cells, some will allegedly produce excess energy while others won't. And it's not the first cells or the last cells, it's rather random, all subjected to the same environmental variables (I don't swear by this, but it's one of the unexplained aspects of these experiments, and if it was just the first or the last, I reckon it wouldn't be much of a mystery). This is rather baffling and I think it has quantum mechanics written all over it, don't you? Makes me wonder if measuring the experiment influences the outcome... wouldn't be the first time, right?

But the point is, scaling doesn't help increase the signal to noise ratio.

Like Frank Close said: "Let's not confuse noise with signal"

A few days ago I had no idea I'd be defending research of low energy nuclear reactions. I didn't know jacks**t about it before this discussion.

[Beto]

(1) Then everything we produce is an unreliable result. I tend to disagree when I look at the world around me. If you want something infallible, obviously science is not the way to go. But reliable? I think the results over the centuries speak for themselves. But on a purely logical standpoint, everything we produce is an unreliable result, hence why science should be, and is, subject to change, necessarily repeatable and falsifiable.

Ultimately all results are unreliable, just like "truth" can't be known. I interpret science as the pursuit of truth, doomed never to know it. It's that honesty I respect about science as I known it, as opposed to religious sanctimoniousness.

(2) Apologies, I just think what you're arguing here has some logical truth to it yet it seems to be negligent of past results, if past results are part of how you'd like to determine the reliability of something. If you argue that evolution is unreliable because it's based on incomplete knowlegde, then logically, you should refer to all results of science as unreliable because all rely on incomplete knowledge. There is no such thing as 'complete knowledge'.

(3) Short answer is yes, I agree (I hope you're not just singling out evolution here by the way, see number (2)). It would be rather narrow and bigoted of me to say that evolution is not prone to being entirely disproven because it's a falsifiable theory based on falsifiable knowledge just like any other, so I won't. Of course you need to be careful so as not to make this discussion an excuse for creationists to argue that evolution should be thrown out. At present it's the most parsimonious, data encompassing, tried and tested theory for the origin of species we have. In the future, it could be falsified and a new theory take it's place. So be it. If we have it all wrong right now and the gods are laughing at us, so be it. As long as we get closer and closer to the x axis of truth riding along the asymptote as we reach infinity, I'm not complaining.

Evolution seems obvious to me, even by mere observation of nature. It's the research of the underlying mechanism without regard for QM that I was questioning.

[Goat]

Ultimately all results are unreliable, just like "truth" can't be known. I interpret science as the pursuit of truth, doomed never to know it. It's that honesty I respect about science as I known it, as opposed to religious sanctimoniousness.

Except, of course, the results have to be predictable, else, little things like light bulbs, electric generators, cars, and computers would not work.

Now, I would be delighted if they did produce consistancy, and it was able to produce a reasonable amount of energy. Yes, there are some documented cases of 'cold fusion', but certainly not enough for 'cheap energy'. One version basically is an ion emitter that can be turned on and off.

But, wanting for something to happen, and it actually happening are two different things. I truly hope I am wrong, and the cold fusion fringe folks come up with something useful. I am not going to bet on it though.

[Cathar1950]

Ultimately all results are unreliable, just like "truth" can't be known. I interpret science as the pursuit of truth, doomed never to know it. It's that honesty I respect about science as I known it, as opposed to religious sanctimoniousness.

Except, of course, the results have to be predictable, else, little things like light bulbs, electric generators, cars, and computers would not work.

Now, I would be delighted if they did produce consistancy, and it was able to produce a reasonable amount of energy. Yes, there are some documented cases of 'cold fusion', but certainly not enough for 'cheap energy'. One version basically is an ion emitter that can be turned on and off.

But, wanting for something to happen, and it actually happening are two different things. I truly hope I am wrong, and the cold fusion fringe folks come up with something useful. I am not going to bet on it though.

I have always had this interest in QM and as we look from a distance what appears to be random has patterns. It seem each expressed possiblity offers other possiblities while at the same time cause limits to possiblities do to the expressions of each occasion.

I am still holding out for time travel. Of course I realize it would cause the end of time as we know it. But I am willing to sacrifice others just so I can change a few things.
I am really looking forward to the end of the universe party.