There are some conditions where this might make sense, because they are associated with localized damage (for example epilepsy), but in general it's no more than a crude indication.
[citation needed?]
As with most brain studies, the discovery of localized brain damage seems to be where progress starts, so the potential of this technique could be significantly more valuable than phrenology... It could also be about as useful as a "brain fingerprint" -- but hopefully the scientific method will determine that shortly.
But what if renewable biofuels (eg algae-produced petrochemicals) become cheap and scalable? We'll be happy we continued to work on ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) to squeeze every last drop of energy out of liquid hydrocarbons if biofuels actually pan out.
And hydrocarbons are a decent way to *store* energy for future use -- look at how long fossil fuels have waited around underground just waiting for humans to burn it in cars.... :P
As you say, fossil fuels are not a great long term solution, but that doesn't necessarily mean ICEs aren't.
For the record, I'm all for "playing god" -- as long as we at least try to minimize the potential damage. Rivers on fire were literally the result of unregulated chemical pollution not too long ago....
Re: Actually the non-rotting hamburger stories have been debunked.
Aha.. thanks for the experimental evidence. Nice to know that there's nothing special about a Happy Meal...
But technically, it's not debunked that the meal won't rot... it just won't rot under certain conditions... which is probably true of the Twinkie as well.
Yup, Pixelation -- the National Ignition Facility sounds like a cool way to achieve fusion... but like all the other fusion approaches, it seems perpetually about 30 years away from actually generating more energy than it consumes?
Thanks for the pdf link... It'd be great if the "cold fusion crackpots" could be completely separated from the legitimate researchers who are trying to track down anomalous energy generation. I'll admit I haven't followed the legitimate literature -- mainly because "crackpots" seem to have created their own "legitimate-sounding" research journals.
I think the Italian group you mention may fall into that "crackpot" category. They published in a journal that they themselves created -- and by claiming that they want to secure patents before releasing their full findings, they've lost a lot of credibility in my mind. Perhaps they've actually stumbled onto something, but if they have... I think they're killing off their own research by keeping it secret and not sharing their work with others.
That "damn bar" will not appear on our site unless you actually use StumbleUpon, and then StumbleUpon frames our site with its bar.
In other words, if you got to Techdirt by typing techdirt.com into your browser, you'll never see the SU bar. But if you "stumble" onto a Techdirt page -- you'll get it.
Okay... I think we can agree that fundamental research is often pushing the boundaries of what we currently understand about the universe around us. I'm all for funding basic research!
Cold Fusion research may well prove to lead to some very interesting discoveries about how calorimetry should be done properly, how electrochemical cells might be improved -- even perhaps how nuclear reactions might take place at ambient conditions.
However, there also seems to be a significant amount of "snake oil science" going on under the guise of "cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction" research. The practitioners of such awful experiments are not to be applauded for their stubbornness in keeping their experimental procedures secret or for hyping their results before they've been repeated by independent labs. Such "researchers" should be scolded appropriately and guided towards proper methods that would lead to reproducible results and improved understanding of any observed phenomena.
In any case... I'll keep an eye out for cold fusion research that is actually notable -- if you have any suggestions for finding cool LENR, I'd appreciate it greatly.
heh. I thought the same thing... But I think there are other folks working on "humming bird" flying robots. Perhaps a topic for a future DailyDirt post. :)
Not only did Pons&Fleischmann publish via press release, but their original paper was ridiculously bad....
I think the true progress of Science benefits from a healthy dose of skepticism and verification.... if you can't verify your results, you're not doing Science. And in many of the cases involving "cold fusion" or "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction" -- there don't seem to be repeatable experiments going on. If there were, then I think these "tabletop fusion" projects would actually get somewhere.
So it's not my ridicule that is holding back this line of research -- it's the lack of being able to verify that anything real is happening by an independent lab.
If these cheap energy experiments were really repeatable, I'm pretty sure my ridicule wouldn't stop people from building fusion generators in their basements......
Aerogels are extremely brittle... and aren't that easy/cheap to mass produce, if memory serves me correctly. So aerogels find their way into Shuttle heat shield tiles... but their performance/price isn't really justified anywhere else.
And I think they've even found better heat shield materials...
If you're going to do that successfully... make sure your car produces enough CO to actually effect the desired result. Otherwise, you'll just be sitting in your Prius eating chocolate until the battery dies.
On the post: DailyDirt: Better Medicine
Re: Phrenology Returns!
[citation needed?]
As with most brain studies, the discovery of localized brain damage seems to be where progress starts, so the potential of this technique could be significantly more valuable than phrenology... It could also be about as useful as a "brain fingerprint" -- but hopefully the scientific method will determine that shortly.
On the post: DailyDirt: Internal Combustion Ain't Dead Yet
Re: just a bad bet
But what if renewable biofuels (eg algae-produced petrochemicals) become cheap and scalable? We'll be happy we continued to work on ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) to squeeze every last drop of energy out of liquid hydrocarbons if biofuels actually pan out.
And hydrocarbons are a decent way to *store* energy for future use -- look at how long fossil fuels have waited around underground just waiting for humans to burn it in cars.... :P
As you say, fossil fuels are not a great long term solution, but that doesn't necessarily mean ICEs aren't.
On the post: DailyDirt: Playing With Biological Fire?
Re: To Those Who Demur About “Playing God” ...
On the post: DailyDirt: How Long Can Food Last?
Re: Techdirt Just Jumped the Shark
If yahoo pipes still works, that feed should remove these posts for you....
On the post: DailyDirt: Distant Discoveries
Re:
But maybe microsatellites will be cheap and plentiful enough to create a huge network of mini-hubbles in LEO by then...?
On the post: DailyDirt: How Long Can Food Last?
Re: Actually the non-rotting hamburger stories have been debunked.
But technically, it's not debunked that the meal won't rot... it just won't rot under certain conditions... which is probably true of the Twinkie as well.
On the post: DailyDirt: Wind & Water Power
Re: Re: Re: Mmmm wildlife
On the post: DailyDirt: Wind & Water Power
Re: Mmmm wildlife
Is that a Homer line? I haven't seen the Simpsons in forever..
And I'm sorta surprised that any energy company would name themselves "Deepwater" anything (after the Deepwater Horizon disaster)....
On the post: DailyDirt: Scientific Measurements
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheap shot at cold fusion ...
Thanks for the pdf link... It'd be great if the "cold fusion crackpots" could be completely separated from the legitimate researchers who are trying to track down anomalous energy generation. I'll admit I haven't followed the legitimate literature -- mainly because "crackpots" seem to have created their own "legitimate-sounding" research journals.
I think the Italian group you mention may fall into that "crackpot" category. They published in a journal that they themselves created -- and by claiming that they want to secure patents before releasing their full findings, they've lost a lot of credibility in my mind. Perhaps they've actually stumbled onto something, but if they have... I think they're killing off their own research by keeping it secret and not sharing their work with others.
On the post: DailyDirt: We Think Recommending Links Makes The Internet Better
Re:
That "damn bar" will not appear on our site unless you actually use StumbleUpon, and then StumbleUpon frames our site with its bar.
In other words, if you got to Techdirt by typing techdirt.com into your browser, you'll never see the SU bar. But if you "stumble" onto a Techdirt page -- you'll get it.
Thanks for the feedback!
mike
On the post: DailyDirt: Scientific Measurements
Re: Re: Re: Cheap shot at cold fusion ...
Cold Fusion research may well prove to lead to some very interesting discoveries about how calorimetry should be done properly, how electrochemical cells might be improved -- even perhaps how nuclear reactions might take place at ambient conditions.
However, there also seems to be a significant amount of "snake oil science" going on under the guise of "cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction" research. The practitioners of such awful experiments are not to be applauded for their stubbornness in keeping their experimental procedures secret or for hyping their results before they've been repeated by independent labs. Such "researchers" should be scolded appropriately and guided towards proper methods that would lead to reproducible results and improved understanding of any observed phenomena.
In any case... I'll keep an eye out for cold fusion research that is actually notable -- if you have any suggestions for finding cool LENR, I'd appreciate it greatly.
On the post: DailyDirt: More Robot Helicopters
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Scientific Measurements
Re: Cheap shot at cold fusion ...
I think the true progress of Science benefits from a healthy dose of skepticism and verification.... if you can't verify your results, you're not doing Science. And in many of the cases involving "cold fusion" or "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction" -- there don't seem to be repeatable experiments going on. If there were, then I think these "tabletop fusion" projects would actually get somewhere.
So it's not my ridicule that is holding back this line of research -- it's the lack of being able to verify that anything real is happening by an independent lab.
If these cheap energy experiments were really repeatable, I'm pretty sure my ridicule wouldn't stop people from building fusion generators in their basements......
On the post: DailyDirt: I'm Leavin' On A Space Plane, Don't Know When I'll Be Back Again....
Re: Capsule AND Wings
Perhaps there's a way to "catch" a capsule as it's floating down -- like a reverse WhiteKnight design from SpaceShipOne.
On the post: DailyDirt: Scientific Measurements
Re: Re: Re: I'm really not a fan of something with two protons being called "hydrogen", ...
On the post: DailyDirt: Robot Helicopters
Re: Sparrows?
On the post: DailyDirt: Novel Materials... And We're Not Talking About Books
Re:
And I think they've even found better heat shield materials...
On the post: DailyDirt: Novel Materials... And We're Not Talking About Books
Re: Nitinol
On the post: DailyDirt: Modern Dentistry
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Good Food, Rare Food
Re: It's over...
Next >>