Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: B4Ranch; Kevmo
Thanks for the ping(s). Interesting, but WAY above my pay grade....I don't think bosons had been invented when I took physics, so I'll refrain from comment.

The experiments I am qualified to judge....theory.....not so much.

But I'll stick a thought in here that recently occurred to me that may help explain why a lot of the "scientist-types" don't "get" Rossi, and complain about his experimental methods.

Rossi is doing ENGINEERING research, not SCIENTIFIC research.

The goals of engineering research are a bit different from scientific research. One is intended to say, "I have proved (this natural phenomenon) does (something)". The other says "I've done enough data collecting sufficiently validly to justify spending further money on this possibly commercial idea".

The methods and standards for engineering research are a bit "looser" than for pure science. As I used to design instrumentation for use in engineering research (and production), I've worked under both regimes. In many cases, I have seen the engineers turn things over to the "pure science" guys to "dot the i's and cross the t's", just as Rossi is doing with the Bologna and Upsala folks.

12 posted on 07/09/2011 10:35:16 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Wonder Warthog
Rossi is doing ENGINEERING research, not SCIENTIFIC research.

The goals of engineering research are a bit different from scientific research. One is intended to say, "I have proved (this natural phenomenon) does (something)". The other says "I've done enough data collecting sufficiently validly to justify spending further money on this possibly commercial idea".


It's sort of like the Wright brothers and Edison: they did the research necessary to get something that worked. They didn't wait to devise an airtight theoretical basis for what they sought to do before doing it. And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention.
13 posted on 07/09/2011 10:43:51 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Wonder Warthog
And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention.

As the author of the above link states:
Note well: Newton and Bernoulli do not contradict each other. Explanations which are based on Newton's and on Bernoulli's principles are completely compatible. Air-deflection and Newton's Laws explain 100% of the lifting force. Air velocity and Bernoulli's equation also explains 100% of the lift. For the most part they're just two different ways of simplifying a single complicated subject. Much of the controversy arises because one side or the other insists that only *THEIR* view is correct. They insist that only a *SINGLE* explanation is possible, and the opposing view is therefore wrong. In other words... which is the One True Way to crack an egg? This is a war between the Big-endians and Little-endians from "Gulliver's Travels." They simply refuse to acknowledge that there are several valid yet independent approaches to solving the problem. They insist that their version must be the single right answer, the "One True Path," and anyone who disagrees is a heretic infidel who must be attacked and silenced.

16 posted on 07/09/2011 10:46:41 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Wonder Warthog

Rossi has had a hard go of it. Years ago, he didn’t understand why it worked, just that it did and he didn’t know how to explain why it worked. I’m not sure that he does yet. I believe he is hoping the university deep thinker, all brain types will find those answers and be able to explain it to the scientist types.


20 posted on 07/09/2011 11:34:29 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Wonder Warthog
The methods and standards for engineering research are a bit "looser" than for pure science. As I used to design instrumentation for use in engineering research (and production), I've worked under both regimes. In many cases, I have seen the engineers turn things over to the "pure science" guys to "dot the i's and cross the t's", just as Rossi is doing with the Bologna and Upsala folks.

So you're saying this holds promise?

33 posted on 07/10/2011 9:08:30 AM PDT by GOPJ (Honk if IÂ’m paying for your car, your mortgage, and your big, fat Greek bailout - mewzilla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Wonder Warthog
The methods and standards for engineering research are a bit "looser" than for pure science. As I used to design instrumentation for use in engineering research (and production), I've worked under both regimes. In many cases, I have seen the engineers turn things over to the "pure science" guys to "dot the i's and cross the t's", just as Rossi is doing with the Bologna and Upsala folks.

So you're saying this holds promise?

34 posted on 07/10/2011 9:09:02 AM PDT by GOPJ (Honk if IÂ’m paying for your car, your mortgage, and your big, fat Greek bailout - mewzilla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson