|
Warning each of us urgently
need to know that
There are no words
powerful enough to emphasize how important basic scientific knowledge
has been,
is, and will be in each and everyone's future.
We take for granted the development of our modern world and we know so little about how much is owed by
so many of us to so few basic researchers who over the eons have found out
how some of the bits and pieces of how nature work.
It has
given us the most precious thing we quest to through applied
research and engineering the most pres
Basic
research science is the least understood human activity, even among scientific
community, it is the most fragile of disciplines,
and it has the least funding of all the sciences. It is fair to
say that it is negligently neglected.
Basic Research in the Natural Sciences is Critically
Underfunded & Confined.
We pivotally need your help We must champion through our
government officials more funding
for basic research especially at the university level . We need to educate, encourage our
leaders to support this most important work.
A short essay supporting
this point of view
A living document. Jim Morris
08/29/2005 07:55 PM
Applied science is what we hear so much about.
Homo sapiens were born with a thirst for knowledge. It's
part of the DNA which makes us different from other living things.
Modern man calls this quest for basic
knowledge Basic research in natural sciences. Basic and applied research
are very different in their goals and visiability. Basic science has
very low public visibility it deals with the study of how all things in nature, at their
most basic and fundamental level, work. Basic researches puts
together
all the pieces of natures puzzle letting us be partners with nature,
living safely together in between natures big and little treasures tsunami
and viruses. It is a search and find activity never knowing
what will be discovered until it is discovered. It is a risk
taking job bordering on acquiring knowledge for
knowledge sake. Some have felt in the past and feel today that paying
money for basic research with such an uncertain return and so technically
obscured is a foolish a waste of money and time. this fear has
always kept the funding of basic research small in comparison to it value. If this fear of risk had prevailed throughout the
ages the funding would have been
stopped and we would be without even the simplest tools. Tools that
today we take
for granted every second of our life. Basic research is the seed for all
discoveries big and little.
By comparison
applied
science and engineering are specifically goal driven using the
fundamental discoveries of the basic research scientist, to invent,
design, and build all the things we use from a tooth pick to a Mars
rover taking 3d pictures of Martian rocks.
Fundamental basic research with
its thirst for knowledge is enormously valuable because it gives us
the starting point of all the things we do, use, and have.
But it is also the least understood, it is the most fragile of disciplines,
and has a funding that is almost negligently neglected.
What is basic research? Here are some examples of basic research and where it
has lead us.
1 : The earliest basic research scientist was most likely a cave man at
best, asking questions like which woods float best in water or make the
hottest fires ? Today and probably even then these questions would
probably have seemed frivolous and a waste of time but the answers to
these questions ultimately lead to boats that improved our access to food and
transportation, and heating of iron ore with charcoal thus removing
the oxygen from the ore (smelting) and getting iron metal. Going
further mixing the metal with the black stuff (carbon) applying heat hardening
and strengthening the
metal to steel.
2 : By direct comparison today's basic research scientist are
still asking questions about everything. For example they're still
interested in carbon
(that black stuff on a half burnt stick from the cave man's fire).
They're asking what kind
of shapes on a molecular scale can carbon atoms be made into? They found a
hollow cluster of 60 carbon atoms shaped like a soccer ball
with very unique
physical, electrical, and chemical properties These question seem complex
beyond most of our understanding - giving some of us a "who cares" attitude,
but the answers will
probably give us major break throughs in delivering medicines for our ills,
providing us cheaper electric
power, stronger and lighter construction materials for our homes and businesses.
What has basic research done for those who use it? One only has to
compare the quality of life of citizens in
nations and religions that support Hi Tech with those that don't.
Specific examples of how it helps those who embrace basic
research.
1 :Life
expectancy has been increased to seventy
seven or more years.
2 : Farmers are getting substantial increase in food productions per acre.
3 : There are organ transplants and medicines to cure many diseases that
used to kill hundreds of thousands in plagues.
4 : We have found ways
to harness energy to run machinery and systems that have decreased
the backbreaking manual labor of making a living.
5 : Basic research scientists can tell us if we are damaging our environment
and how to fix it. If we listen!
6 : We have found ways of communicating and traveling all over the world at
speeds and in ways never thought of before science showed us the way. This
has accelerated the growth of scientific discoveries,
education, business opportunities, and quality of life around the
world.
What about those who don't have the
products of basic research. What are some of the misery of those who have been denied
the benefits of basic research,
1 :
One of the most important spin offs of the
latest hi tech communication is that we the average citizen and our leaders
can see
together, hear
together,
and measure together, in virtually real time radio and TV, the terrible tragedies of those innocent lives
that have been denied access to technology. These poor people don't even have the simplest
communications with accurate relevant technical information that could be
used to solve
the simplest problems clean water, .jobs, modern medicines,
energy, etc..
Question : While we have these
real time images clearly before us, why can't we recognize the urgent
need for informed forward looking leadership with the technical vision to
help us support more basic research in the natural sciences?
What about the benefit to
businesses when governments increase funding for the basic research sciences.
Why doesn't business do more funding of basic research.
All of us should or have to clearly see that increasing our basic scientific
research efforts will help in reducing the suffering from
poverty, plague, and tyranny. But not everyone will understand that it will
also give technical and commercial benefits to the business
community. Some
large companies may spend seemingly large sums of money on applied research
but they can only afford to spend only tiny amounts on basic research and even that
has to be focused on their product line to keep the business costs down. So with this in mind, business
across the line will benefit in at least two ways if governments
increase the funding in basic research in the natural science.
First : Many of the discoveries can lead to improvements in existing
products and generate new products thus new businesses and
economic growth.
Second: It can grow the economy by creating
more jobs, employing more people, and building the customer base.
What is the relative cost of this basic research : By comparison to other expenses an infinitesimal
fraction of our population and money
resources goes into basic research. There are only about 100,000
members of the American physical society approximately 140,000 members in
the American chemical society with only a few in either society
engaged in basic research Mature cost benefit calculations would show
us an overwhelmingly large pay back. So we need to have an increase in support to
basic research It would beonly a small percent of
overall spending, giving an enormous payback. We
must remember that never
in our development of our modern world has so much been owed by so many to
so few.
The monies for basic research is for our future. Even in the nations
enjoying high tech there is much to be done : Most of this increased research work would not be
done in government laboratories but rather would be awarded in the traditional form of
contracts to universities and research institutes where most of this work
is carried on to begin with. A place where there is a better chance of
people benefits being a higher priority than the restrictive
business profit requirements.(??) This funding path gives us our research and
at the same time teaches our new scientists for the next generation.
What are the obstacles to doing this basic research and applying it?
There are many, some of the more important examples are listed below.
In spite of the gains in people's lives
as described above, there has been poor to miserable recognition by
leadership across all fronts, even in science, for the value of basic
research in the natural sciences to help make changes for the better.
The leadership has provided only a fraction of the funding needed for the
basic sciences to help solve our common problems. Instead our leaders put
more and more of our tax
monies into military and police weapons to protect ourselves from these
very problems that will not go away using these tactics. At times
it almost seems that we are encouraged indirectly and directly by the political and
religious leaders to carry out or condone major ethnic cleansing, economic and
cultural wars. We tend to permit plagues that ravage the poorest of the poor,
The propaganda thru our hi tech media plays upon our greed, using prophesies
of doomsday unless we kill the doomers.
The
neglect of "proper government funding in basic research in the natural
sciences, its education and application is a colossal leadership failure,
especially if one counts the total loss of life in tons of flesh per
year because of premature death by
diseases
and violence
The
basic problem stopping
the funding for basic research is
our political leaders.
In our quest to achieve
this
higher quality of life for better jobs and less suffering,
not enough of us
realize,
especially our political
leaders, that we can't do it with out understanding the basic science
of things where most all of the solutions in the past have been found.
It is
very important to recognize that in the beginning at each new
discovery there are even more new and vital questions opened
that need answers. We must not be beguiled by some success but continue
our obligations for steady funding. At this early place in our history of understanding nature there has
to be a budget growth with each discovery.
Like all curves of growth the funding will increase level out and be reduced
as we go through the normal curve of growth.
Again In Summary There
are Six Axioms That Stand Out;
1 : There are no words
powerful enough to emphasize how important basic scientific
knowledge has been and will be in each and everyone's future
2 : Basic
research in natural science is the starting point of all technical
knowledge. It is the study of how all things in nature work, at their
most basic and fundamental level.
3
: Applied sciences and engineering cannot grow to new heights in
building new things to benefit us all with out the foundation of new
discoveries by the basic researches of the natural scientist.
4 : Although basic research is
the starting point of all progress , it is the least understood, it is
the most fragile, with a funding that is the most neglected.
5:We must not take
for forget the development of our modern world and how much is owed by so
many to so few. 6:Every day
the suffering and injustices goes on for those denied the golden gems of
of Basic Research.
We Must Act Now.
1: Humanity
pivotally, urgently
needs our help to champion through our
government officials more funding
for basic research.
2:We need to educate ourselves and others to encourage our
leaders to support for this most important work.
Read on for detailed information |
|
Below outlines the things we need to know and do
to revitalize basic research in the natural sciences.
1: We need to know who what and why is standing in the way of doing
the necessary basic research in the natural sciences.
2: We need to know who the controlling forces are , not the check signers but the ones controlling the check signers, the remote controllers
and educate, encourage these forces to support this
most important work.
3: We need to know the number of ways that advances in basic research in
science is being slowed and stopped.
Below is outlined how basic research is being slowed
down or stopped:
1:
VOL 427, 19 Feb. 2004
and follow some of the trails of how basic research is slowed or in some
cases temporarily stopped and by
whom.
2: Read on further to see how
scientist work and how and why they make significant break throughs using
the testable Accuracy / Honesty rules in doing
and reporting there research. See if they are really different in their
motivations and aspirations.
3: See
what good & bad scientific papers (including cold fusion) look like. |
Here is a list of those who directly or indirectly control the
funding of basic research.
Political Control::: A country our size that has contributed and
used technology more than any other major nation in the world,
which gave us a standard of living at the top of the list, is now stopping science & technology at
its
borders, See Article in Nature above.
Business Control: The IEEE, electronic and electrical engineers,
generally employees of business, have accepted this political
control. A typical example of the type of control in
the business community is the recent hiding of research data
conducted in the tobacco industry labs showing the dangers and addiction
from smoking and how to make it more addicting.
Religious' Control: Note the small picture at the top left of the
Nature article above. South
Koreans, (not the U.S. because "religious" influence are
making significant advances in health science at its most fundamental level.
Is our physical health the province of the Church (if so which one), Temple
(if so which one), or Mosque (if so which one), etc.?
Media Control discussed below: more direct yet
harder to measure its affect on basic research. Maybe more
important than most people think. The only connection we have with the
basic research scientist is through the Media. See below for some of the details, .
Basic Research Anti-Control: The basic research scientists of physics
have objected to the Treasury departments ban on publishing research papers
in journals published in the U.S.. The product
of
basic research is knowledge. The knowledge or basic understanding of
energy and matter belongs to everyone. History has shown that no
government, business, or religion can permanently shut down the
distribution of the basic knowledge of how nature works. Some one once said "You
can hide knowledge from some of the public some of the time but not
all of the public all of the time. and those that try will be ultimately be
left behind." Do we want this to happen to The U.S.?.
Definition of Control
tv.v.To exercise authoritative or dominating
influence
|
|
The media shares in the
blame for the poor funding for basic research through the unreal images
of scientist they project to the public.
The very nature of the work of science builds our knowledge of nature
and ultimately a better quality of life. The media
at best entertains the worst of our nature and at the very worst
propagandizes and marginalizing the role and value of sciences
contribution to improving our nature. |
|
What is going on
here? Why is the media distorting the information coming
from scientists and distorting scientists images? A rough
analysis of the why follows in the paragraphs below.
The question is can the media become more responsible in
matters so important to all of us or is the Mary Shelly's 1818 Frankenstein science fiction story coming true?
Has the basic science research community through its breakthroughs in science
and technology made a civilization eating monster called the Media
A Monster with
a voice so strong that it can be heard around the world at the speed of light.
If so
will it become a monster even worse than Mr. Government's technical war
machines. A virtual propaganda machine funded by business for simple
advertisement purposes but becoming , as some believe, a weapon of
mass destruction capable of being more destructive than our nuclear
weapons. |
Has
the Media become a match ready to light triggers of weapons of
mass destructions. Certainly the media is used by governments as
a propaganda tool that justifies such actions. If this is true should we be asking who
controls or will control the Media Monster in the future? Look at the
information flow diagram or map below and see which power base that has the
moneys that controls the
Media. Follow the arrow coming from scientist carrying valuable
information to the media and the arrows out to public, government,
business and religion with a less than flattering picture of Einstein
etc.. What is the media gaining from these distortions?
Could it be because their sole source of income is from advertising. and
the media will lose the ad business if they lose the public attention
between the ads? |
The public has just one source of information and that's the media.
This raises the question : Is this the best control system for the
Homo
Sapiens future? Basic science research
work will be making enormous changes in our future to some both good and bad.
Some would say stop or control the gathering
and spreading of natures knowledge. No culture or society has been successful
at this approach it's in mans DNA and can't be stopped.
The first and basic question is it possible to separate the
news from the entertainment.. If we have an accurately informed public
will the average citizen be a good enough citizen to make a difference
giving us
a better chance for a better future then our past?
|
|
And Now The New
Media?????
How much impact on public opinion do the internet
reporters / journalist have? Web reporters amateurs and professional recognized and take advantage
of the new inexpensive communication technology to express their views on any
topic to the world. All of us have seen ambiguous claims on web
news letters.
Do most of web
publishers apply the successful basic
Testable Accuracy/Honesty
rule of the basic research
scientist?
Do they have advertisement on their
sites? Again, Edward Bulwer-Lytton
reminds us that the
pen/web site is mightier and (more dangerous*) than the sword.
|
Below is a flow diagram of the spread of scientific knowledge through
the Homo Sapiens world...
Note the Media edits (translates) all scientific news releases even choses which news release that will be released.
Note who and what controls (even unintentially controls) the Media editors Follow the money.
It is important.
Roll the curser over the image to see the other connections and the money
details.
|
The public's
view of scientist and how they do their basic research is mostly science
fiction.
So how does a real basic research scientist really work?
|
The engine that
drives the basic research scientist is competition and the principal reason for
their success is testable accuracy / honesty.
This community of
basic researchers is small, inclusive, & exclusive. It's a challenge to
become a citizen, break the rules of honesty, and you permanently lose
your citizenship.
The work is fiercely completive. To win
the race in making the discovery first, researchers are forced
to work closely with their competition, because the
competition is furnishing ideas and data that you and others are building on.
Basic researchers depend on each other's work. They are the team of all teams
simply out of
unmitigated necessity.
Everyone's research work has to be done
correctly with testable accuracy/honesty because other are building on it. It is a disaster and visible to
all if the rule is broken.
The very successful progress
that basic research in the natural sciences has enjoyed over the centuries has been through the way
research is judged, tested and reported.
Before modern mathematics physical
models or processes were required to demonstrate and replicate the discovery (taming fire, stone
for tools, etc.).
In most of the research today the reporting structure uses the
language of mathematics which has a fixed grammar and where everything
ultimately is
reduced to just three testables: length, mass, and time. In both instances
the work has to be repeatable by other laboratories. This is
where basic research uses its testable accuracy/honesty rule. Vague
wordage or poetry are not helpful in the utilitarianism of basic research.
Basic Research is thus truly
a remarkable island of truth in a world filled with misrepresentation.
Scientists like all other citizens have the same self serving interest, greed, selfishness, etc. etc.
as all homo sapiens but the basic research scientists uses
testable accuracy/honesty in their work. Bad research
surfaces quickly, and its authors disfranchised from the community
(Ref, a5).
The
discoveries gained through basic research have made a larger impact on the
physical quality of human life than any other activity Compare nations,
cultures and wealth, with and without the benefits of technology. compare
earlier times with today. On the average humans live longer and freer derived
from the basic researcher discoveries.
There
has been and continues to be great value
in
using the model that basic research scientist use to test their work.
There might be even greater value if the testable honesty criteria were incorporate
into the rest of Homo Sapiens enterprises.
Because of the confusional nature of our written and
spoken use of words I've taken the America
Heritage Dictionary
definitions of the various pertinent terms
as my working reference.
|
How well is basic research viewed and supported today in the U.S.?
The examples in the introduction show the weak support that the basic
research scientists are getting from the Governments, Media, and
various religious factions.
The public's view of basic research, & how scientist
do it is mostly science fiction. i.e. not real. This is getting
to be a very serious problem for us in the U,S. and only the researchers
know this is happening, This group whose discoveries are so important for
our future is getting a bad guy image with a voice too small to
stop this dangerous downward spiral. The schism between the basic research
scientists and the public In the U.S. is growing at an alarming rate.
The public's image of the basic research scientist and how he does his
work, has been steadily dropping since the seventies and so has the funding
for basic research( don't forget real inflation) While India and China
have been steady increasing their funding of the sciences (ref.1a), the U.S. has been
steadily decreased it . The U.S. is supporting a "Wall Mart" strategy for
basic research. This blind sighted funding lets the other guy get the
patents, the budding scientist, and the businesses that go with them.
Testable Accuracy/Honesty are the keynote passwords of the
natural scientist in doing their work. Advertising, Business, Politics, and Media seldom,
for what ever the reason, are comfortable sharing
these passwords.
Summary
A
Concern About Funding Basic Research in the Natural Sciences
There are no words powerful enough to emphasize how important
scientific
knowledge has been and will be in each and
everyone's future
.. It is poorly funded and a political foot ball !
Money for research is scarce and is
getting scarcer in the U.S. accept for the anti terrorist research
developing search programs that look at each and everyone of us
testing to see if we fit a profile.. Priorities to be funded are
being assigned by everyone but scientist doing the work. Even
religious leaders are getting into the act of when, where and if, to
spend monies on research, and even what to teach in our children in
our education system. There are few if any scientist or engineers in
our Congress. There is simply no voices with power for the basic
research community and many against it. We have fewer youngsters
going into chemistry and physics while in China most of the highest
members in government are engineers and scientist and they are
going into everything, and they know where they're going. |
|
|
Here are three examples of the testable accuracy/honesty at
work highlighting good and poor work in basic research.
1st example:
Lying falsifying data |
Ref, 5a Physicist Schon stripped of doctorate.
Munich The University of Constance in Germany has
withdrawn the PhD of Jan Hendrik Schon, the German physicist who fabricated
data in 16 high-profile papers
produced during his stay at Bell
Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.
The university awarded Schon his PhD
in 1997 for his work on semiconductor
systems for use as solar cells. After he was
found guilty of scientific fraud in 2002 (see
Nature4l9,419-421 : 2002), the university
carried out an investigation of his earlier
research in Germany, which was found to
be free of misconduct.
But the university has now used a law
that allows a PhD to be withdrawn if its
holder behaves in an "undignified" manner.
"Schon has violated the dignity of the
doctorate, and thus damaged the credibility
of science in public," says Wolfgang
Dieterich, a physicist in charge of PhD
awards at the university. Schon has one
month to appeal the decision. |
|
|
Cold Fusion
2nd example, Not following the traditions of
reporting their work
Some scientist give the rest of their community and their field of
science a bad image
by not using the time tested methods of checking and reporting their work.
This bad image helped to reduce the short supply of government funds for basic research work in the
natural sciences. |
In this example sometimes both scientist and politicians work together to shoot themselves
in the foot and create good examples to the public on how not to do
politics or basic research. One example is
cold fusion. Two respectable scientist working with
comparatively simple laboratory equipment (that was available to most first
year college chemistry students). conducted an experiment on fusion using the metal
palladium known to absorb seemingly extraordinarily
amounts of hydrogen and its isotopes. Their preliminary data (showed
excess heat from their experiments) indicating (to them) that they had
created a cold thermal fusion reaction.
This discovery would been one of the most extraordinary and
important scientific breakthroughs for the public in the history
of man.
They
bowed under great pressure to tell the world of their discovery.
Unfortunately they announced it prematurely. That is without
the usual
time honored checking and cross checking of their data, that the scientific
community traditionally expects
before releasing a report. Some how congress
got wind of the work and called the research workers to report their
experiment before them and the world at large. Unfortunately the experiments
had flaws which showed up very early in the presentation and continued to
haunt them and the scientific community to this day.
But the search goes on for the Holy Grail and because the
equipment is of modest cost and proportions many amateur as well
a few professional continue this research. Unfortunately some of
their reports especially those of the amateur scientists have flaws,
such as incompleteness and reproducibility, and because of this
they are quickly ignored. Funding for basic research work is
in short supply.
The funds are not keeping up with the work that needs to be done.
Basic research funding in almost all areas comes principally from our
government. Universities and similar research facilities do most of the
basic research not government laboratories. Funding for
Basic Research in general and Cold Fusion in
particular is in short supply as compared to war and protection from
terrorist programs.
Why is this? Can it be that our political
leaders education is to old and has not kept up with what research
basic science is doing in the world especially in China and India. Think of this our leaders were out of
school before the web was given to the world and the DNA was unlocked.
There is a good chance that they don't have a clue of what's going on with
the dizzying speed of scientific discoveries being made today, Much
of it going over seas along with the jobs and the U.S. future.
|
3rd example
Lacking sufficient information concerning the data used to
reach the conclusions. Inadequate critiquing of alternate explanations.
here is a comparison of two papers roughly dealing with the same
experiment.
Please note the difference in the quality of the 2 papers.
The first paper looks at
nuclear reactions on and in electrodes it was published in 2005.
The second, on
electrode phenomenon reported by a young scientist Dr. Robert Oppenheimer
in 1928. giving the same experimental appearances of electrodes as the first paper
with an alternate explanation for this appearance. |
Low input energy nuclear transformation,
If fission occurred can fusion be far behind? For this example I
picked a paper from a rather extensive list of sites. This one
because it looks super scientific with all its equations and very impressive
pictures . One should go visit the site to judge for your self.
The url
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/lorio/index2.htm.
I looked over this paper for a few hours looking up data etc. I did
not do the traditional professional reviewing task that, lets
say, Physical Review expects.
|
The first paper represent little or
inadquate refreeing.
I'm uncomfortable with
this paper because it doesn't do justice to alternate
explanations and it does not give enough detail to make a judgment of the
validity of their data or conclusions.
|
1st. issue appearance of electrodes.
|
Oppenheimer suggest in his paper that electrodes
have hot spots which are due to the microscopic differences of the
work functions on the surface. From my experience and his remarks
they also may be partly due to microscopic irregularities on the
surface which is one of the crystalline natures of tungsten.
Irregularities especially if they have sharp edges sharp in the (nano
sense) promote breakdown ( the field strength is proportional to the charge and
inversely proportional to the radius squared at a bulge. Example a
radius of 12" will resist a break down of 500,000 volts at 1 atm in air)
For nano radii a few volts or less. If one or more of these edges establish a
place for the discharge to start the chances are that it will continue to
run in this spot forming holes that get deeper as the discharge runs
(these are called hollow cathode electrodes, another strange
electrode phenomenon ), The arc at its contact point chases the
impurity along a boundary layer. If you take a s.e.m. of a
tungsten lamp filament after it has been running few hundred hours or an
electrode in an arc discharge light bulb, they looks very much like the
photos in
Domenico Cirillo, Alessandro
Dattilo, Vincenzo Iorio paper above.
2nd issue In the voltage or power measurement did they use true rms
meters that are designed for use up into and including the rf frequencies.
Arc discharges tend to have negative resistances and the voltage
wave forms that are not sine waves but almost square waves. Cirilli
discuses the irregularity of the arc current.
Their power measurements could have
serious errors if not measured with the appropriate meters.
3nd. issue.
Its about "impurities" giving signals that they conclude
would only come from a nuclear event. Is there other explanation for their
presence. Every basic researcher knows that there are always impurities present
in the system The world is very dirty. The question is what are the
levels before and after the test? Often the impurities are down in the
boundaries of the crystal lattices structures . There is almost
always little surface contamination from handling and storage
These would be released as the electrodes were eaten away. There are
lots of ways these elements show up besides
transmutations!
It would have been helpful if authors had listed most of the
ways that these elements could have gotten into the soup and list along
with them the limit of directivity of each instrument making the
measurements..
4th issue
How many times did they repeat the experiment.
Where are the statistics? What is the level of repeatability on all the
facets that are relevant to the experiment?
The readers deserve and want
to know these details .
These are only a few of the many
relevant questions that have not been discussed with the kind of detail that
the basic research scientist community needs and that all have
agreed to live up to when they publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal.
The burden of proof is always up to the authors. There is a lot of tiresome
detail work that has to go into every basic research paper, and
the devil is in these details
A summary of the
attributes of a peer reviewed scientific paper.
I've have repeatedly argued that every explanation of how nature works
has to be and is treated as possibility. There are many explanations
about how nature works in every field of science.
A
important thing to remember is about timing A new discovery takes
time to be accepted. Other researchers have to repeat the discovery, debate the
results, perhaps even to check it out by other methods to get
further confirmation. This takes time and money.
Summary : Cold Fusion,
Cirilli's
paper, On the surface it looks like the authors
have some work to do to make their note publishable in a time tested peer
reviewed journal or conference dealing with this topic. If they are just
thinking aloud on the web and looking for an open discussion and
want out side help thinking through the issues than that's great.
I believe this is just what the web was originally designed for where the
research scientists exchanges information on government projects. The
discussion were professional and polite.
Everyone knows? that getting into personalities or gut feeling issues, or
distorting the truth for personal gain bears bitter fruit. (the
shadow knows) but some do it anyways.
.
|
The Oppenheimer paper : In
this Oppenheimer paper
I don't expect one to follow the details of the science but it is easy to read
and its not just about electrodes. It is also shows the struggle of classic
versus quantum physics. This was a struggle even by those proposing the quantum
theory.
I invite you to follow the discussions, the level
and amount of detail covered, the counter arguments almost like the author is
thinking aloud. Here is a fair and complete discussion leading to a
testable conclusion. It is typical example of how basic research scientist
work and how they publish their results. I believe that most people would find
it satisfactory.
I chose
Oppenheimer
paper for 3 reasons.
1st It's relevant to the subject of electrodes and arc discharges that
was covered in the Cirillo/Lorio paper.
2nd, it's short, and deals with a single issue. It is not an
outstanding paper but just one of those run of the mill piece of work that all
research scientists publish as part of their job.
3rd, I chose
this because it's a typical refereed peer reviewed paper and
represents what such a paper should look like. I also was motivated to
believe one might take it more seriously because Oppenheimer wrote it.
One of the most famous scientist of the last century,
Its
a valuable paper showing the style of how the content is organized,
see the detail of the analysis, the comparisons against other explanations, and
the references including a personal communications from a competitor |
Definition of terms abstracted from the
American Heritage Dictionary.
There is more than enough confusion in any language about the definition
of words that the author felt it necessary to give the reader the
definitions and their source that was used.. |
RETURN INTRODUCTION1
Definition of
Natural Science n.
A science, such as biology, chemistry, or physics, that deals with the
objects, phenomena, or laws of nature and the physical world. --natural
scientist n.
Definition of
science
1.a. The observation, identification, description,
experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such
activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological
activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a
science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the
science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through
experience.
Synonyms of
science
1. (n.)
Knowledge acquired through study:
erudition
body of knowledge
culture
know-how (colloquial)
learning
letters
lore
wisdom
Definition of Basic
1. Of, relating to, or forming a base : fundamental:
Synonyms of Basic
principle
axiom
basics
essentials
basic idea
fundamental
rule
basis
rudiment
proposition
element
formula
Definition of
nature
1. The material world and its phenomena. 2. The forces and
processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world:
the laws of nature. 3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the
beauties of nature. 4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and
uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life
anymore and went back to nature. 5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as
distinguished from the state of
Synonyms of
nature
variety
breed
cast
class
cut
genus
ilk
kind
lot
order
persuasion
sort
species
stamp
stripe
style
type
category
strain
Definition of scientist 1. A person having expert
knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.
Definition of Physics
1. The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two,
grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics,
thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions
including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics,
particle physics, and plasma physics. 2. (used with a pl. verb). Physical
properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic
flight. 3. The study of the natural or material world and phenomena : natural
philosophy. ]
To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate
manner.
The products of physics research is naturaly found in all other branches of
science.
RETURN INTRODUCTION
Definition of engineering
1.a. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical
ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and
economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. b. The profession
of or the work performed by an engineer. 2. Skillful maneuvering or
direction: geopolitical engineering : social engineering.
Definition of Research
1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. Close careful study, To
study (something) thoroughly.
1. Often used to modify another noun: a research grant : research assistants.
--re·search v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es. --intr. 1. To
engage in or perform research. --tr. so as to present in a detailed,
accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain.
Synonyms of Research
1. (n.) A search for the facts or truth about something:
investigation
inquiry
inquest
inquisition
probe
quest
study
Definition of Peer
n. 1. A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank,
class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers.
1. (n.) One who is similar to another in rank or position:
associate
colleague
compeer
comrade
confrŠre
counterpartrt
equal
fellow
like
match
definition of Laws
12.a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable
between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions
are met: the law of gravity.
Synonyms of Laws
principle
axiom
basics
essentials
basic idea
fundamental
rule
basis
rudiment
proposition
element
formula
Definition Frankenstein
n. 1. An agency or a creation
that slips from the control of and ultimately destroys its creator. 2. A
monster having the appearance of a man. [From Frankenstein, the creator of
the artificial monster in Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.]
————————————————————
WORD HISTORY: The word Frankenstein has taken on a life of its own, somewhat
like the monster created from parts of corpses by the Swiss student
Frankenstein, whose name serves as the title of Mary Shelley's novel,
published in 1818. People have persisted in calling the monster
Frankenstein : in fact, the first recorded use of the name as a common noun
in 1838 refers to mules as “Frankensteins.” The word has gone on to refer to
“a monster having the appearance of a man” and “an agency that slips from
the control of and ultimately destroys its creator.” Since most people have
given the name of the novel's protagonist to his creation, Frankenstein's
monster has, in a sense, destroyed its creator.
Definition propaganda
n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information
reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a
doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine
or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime
propaganda.
|
ref. 1a Nature vol.410 8 march 2001 p13434
ref. 2a Nature vol 430 12 august 2004 p720
ref. 3a Nature vol 430 12 august 2004 p 729
ref, 4a Nature vol 430 12 august 2004 p 720
ref. 5a Nature vol 429 17 June 2004 p692
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.htmlml
* (some still betting on
Freudian solutions)
Author's bits, pieces, scribbles,
notes and things to do for this project.
Science has made it possible to see what we can't see. hear what we cant
hear, feel what we cant feel. We can pickup and look at
individual atoms, molecules, in the labortory or catch sundry high energy
particles coming from stars at
the edge of our universe . we see the interiors of the earth with seismic
waves. we can see the inside of our brains playing chess while the
drug addict is experiencing a highest and lowest. We can hear molecules pick
up and move individual atoms around.
Remember the curve of growth of products, composition of the
sun, there has to be one for the level of funding of basic research describe
it to show there limit for the costs.
Basic research example : man has been
around carbon for ever half burnt stick from his fire were pure form of
carbon. he probably used burnt sticks as pencils to make marking and drawing
on his face and in his caves in his caves. He uses if the reduce iron ore to
iron metal, more modern times as a filler for the tires on his
automobile first light bulbs davey arc lamps 1800's bucky palls nano tubes
electric diamonds for his jewelry and it may soon give us better wire to
distribute electricity. resistors for electrical circuits.
lubricant key locks, its a product of power plants global warming . I
wonder if the progress of computer animation for movies has led to better
use of the computer for doing colloidal chemistry, electric field modeling
of the shape of molecules etc.
Adjective and adverbs the least descriptive parts of speech in our
inventory of words. As the 911 towers came tumbling down the news man
looked into the camera and said "what can I say" ---
He had already used all the adjectives and superlatives without leaving
any for the final tragedy.
Basic science, applied science, engineering, business,
and government are a team. that will not function for long
without working together.
Data --- populations issues; how many are in basic research? Take a ratio of
the worlds population to the number of scientist there are roughly
100,000 member in the American Physical Society, 140,000 in the America
chemical Society, With only a fraction in basic research.
Like 1 out of 7000 are killed in a car every year in the usa
big and little: The smaller something is
the bigger the instrument needed to see it.
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which tool has the most power to do good or evil?
Some would say the pen/pencil is more powerful than the sword
(spear head) It's like a loose cannon rolling around a pitching deck if it
doesn't use the
Scientist Accuracy/Honesty Rule.
It's a valuable tool if it uses with Accuracy/Honesty rule
Two Views to the Future
Here is a collage with Dr Einstein peering over at
some tools, some ancient, some recent that are sign posts on the road to the our
future. Some travelers will look at them as weapons of evil. Some like our young
lady see them as valuable tools helping us on our path to a bright future.
Stravinskys
Petrouchka is a doll, a puppet-like man. He is the superfluous one, and the helpless victim of a brutality he cannot combat. |
|
from
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles06/sy57.shtml
Stravinskys
P etrouchka
is a
doll, a puppet-like man. He is the superfluous one, and the helpless
victim of a brutality he cannot combat. Paul Rosenfeld ("Musical
Portraits") finds this figure to be "the man-machine seen from
without, unsympathetically, in its comic as pece. Countless poets
before Stravinskys have attempted to portray the puppet-like
activities of the human being, and Petrouchka is but one of the
recent innumerable stage-shows that expose the automaton in the
human soul. But the puppet-show of Stravinsky is singular because of
its musical accompaniment. For, more than even the mimes on the
stage, the orchestra is full of the spirit of the autotmato. The
angular, wooden gestures of the dolls, their smudged faces, their
entrails of sawdust, are in the music ten, times as intensely as
they are upon the stage. The score is full of revolutions of wheels,
of delicate clock-work movements, of screws and turbines.
And what is not purely mechanistic, nevertheless completes the
picture of, the world as it appears to one who has seen the
man-machine in all its comedy. The stage pictures, the trumpery
little fair, the tinsel and pathetic finery of the crowds, the
dancing of the human ephemerida moment before the snow begins to
fall, are stained marvelously deeply by the music.... It has indeed
a servant-girl grace, a coach, manador, a barrel-organ, tin-type,
popcorn, fortune-teller flavor."
Leonid Sabaneyeff, in his "Modern Russian Composer"
(International Publishers, New York), says, somewhat devastatingly,
that "the brightest place among Stravinsky's compositions belongs to
'Petrouchka.' Both his opponents and those whom he subsequently
alienated were unanimous in admiration of this composition. Perhaps
this very woodenness of the theme itself gave him an advantage, for
one does not ever sense Stravinsky's soul in his music : he hides it
painstakingly : perhaps he is a sort of Petrouchka him-self, and
instead of a life of the soul, he has only tricks and tin-foil
magic. Perhaps, like Petrouchka, instead of blood he has klyukva
(variety of cranberry juice), and instead of entrails, sawdust. This
magician can occasionally make one believe that he is a great
musician and make one overlook the inner chill of his creations,
which have not been composed by thought and heart but by cold
calculation and a hellish technic and the inventiveness of its
inventor.
Another comment of a communistically inspired hue: "The ballet
depicts the life of the lower classes in Russia, with all its
dissoluteness, barbarity, tragedy, and misery. Petrouchka is a sort
of Polichinello, a poor hero always suffering from the cruelty of
the police and every kind of wrong and unjust persecution. This
represents symbolically the whole tragedy in the existence of the
Russian people, a suffering from despotism and injustice. The scene
is laid in the midst of the Russian carnival, and the streets are
lined with booths in which Petrouchka plays a kind of humorous role.
He is killed, but he appears again as a ghost on the roof of the
booth to frighten his enemy, his old employer, an allusion to the
despotic rulers in Russia."
|
| Relative
funding for basic research
is going down hill in U.S.
and Europe the so called technical leaders of the world why? |
You can hide knowledge from some of the public some of the time but
not all of the public all of the time and those who try are left behind.
Science with out measurements is no science at all. Like nature abhorrers a
vacuum philosophy abhors measurements.
Support Basic research in the natural sciences. Call
and write not e-mail your government
representatives today.
Life expectancy over human history
Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Timeline for humans
Homo sapiens sapiens live on
average 37 years in
Zambia and on average 81 years in
Japan. The oldest age (legitimately) recorded
for any human is 122 years, though some people in
Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years.
The following information is derived from the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
- Neanderthal, 20
- Neolithic, 20
- Classical Greece, 28
- Classical Rome, 28
- Medieval England, 33
- End of 18th Century, 37
- Early 20th Century, 50
- Circa 1940, 65
- Current (in the West), 77-81
Life expectancy increased dramatically in the
20th century, especially in developed nations.
Life expectancy at birth in the
United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end
of the century it was 77 years, an increase of
greater than 50%. Similar gains have been enjoyed
throughout the world. Life expectancy in
India and The
People's Republic of China was around 40 years
at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to
around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the
eradication and control of numerous infectious
diseases and to advances in agricultural technology
(such as
chemical fertilizers).
Basic life expectancy numbers tend to exaggerate
this growth, however. The low level of pre-modern
life expectancy is distorted by the previous
extremely high
infant and childhood mortality. If a person did
make it to the age of forty they had an average of
another twenty years to live. Improvements in
medicine, public health, and nutrition have
therefore mainly increased the numbers of people
living beyond childhood, with less effect on overall
average lifespan.
These improvements continue to confound the
predictions of
Thomas Malthus, who predicted what is now known
as the
Malthusian catastrophe which would occur when
population growth exceeded the capacity of the world
to sustain that population.
The major exception to this general pattern of
improvement has been in those countries worst hit by
AIDS, principally in Sub-Saharan Africa, which
have seen significant falls in life expectancy due
to the disease in recent years. European socialist
countries (such as the
Soviet Union,
Poland,
Czechoslovakia and
Hungary) were characterized by decreasing life
expectancy and increasing mortality (especially
among adult men) in the late
1960s,
1970s and
1980s. Another exception is
Russia and other former USSR republics after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Life expectancy of
men dropped to 59.9 years (below the official
retirement age), of women to 72.43 years (1999).
In recent years,
obesity-correlated diseases have become a major
public health issue in many countries. The
prevalence of obesity is thought to have reduced a
potential for longer life expectancy by contributing
to the rise of cancers, heart disease and diabetes
in the developed world.
Throughout human history most of the increase in
life expectancy arose from preventing early deaths.
However, many scientists believe this will not stay
true in the future as medical advancements aimed at
halting or even reverting aspects of the aging
process become widely available.
Timeline for humans
Homo sapiens sapiens live on
average 37 years in
Zambia and on average 81 years in
Japan. The oldest age (legitimately) recorded
for any human is 122 years, though some people in
Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years.
The following information is derived from the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
- Neanderthal, 20
- Neolithic, 20
- Classical Greece, 28
- Classical Rome, 28
- Medieval England, 33
- End of 18th Century, 37
- Early 20th Century, 50
- Circa 1940, 65
- Current (in the West), 77-81
Variations in life expectancy in the world today
There are great variations in life expectancy
worldwide, mostly caused by differences in public
health, medicine and nutrition from country to
country.
There are also variations between groups within
single countries. For example, in the US in the
early 20th century there were very large differences
in life expectancy between people of different
races, which have since lessened. There remain
significant differences in life expectancy between
men and women in the US and other developed
countries, with women outliving men. These
differences by sex have been reducing in recent
years, with men's life expectancy improving at a
faster rate than women's.
|
Copyright by Jim & Rhoda Morris 3/21/05
| |
