Feynman on cargo cult science

[Allcanadian]

I was reading some Feynman lectures tonight and one reminded me of many of the forums.

Feynman said cargo cult science was named after some natives who got food from cargo planes during the war. The natives equated the planes with food and when the planes stopped coming they wanted them back.

So the natives built a fake runway and tried to replicate an airport with grass huts and bamboo antenna. They believed that if they replicated everything the others did from there perspective the planes would magically appear but they didn't.

This is a brilliant lesson by Feynman and I learned it early on in my own research. Like the natives I learned that simply replicating something to look similar to another device is usually a lesson in failure. It implies appearances matter more than the science behind a device which is never the case. 

Regards
AC

[partzman]

Ah yes this reminds me when I was a youngster, I saw an article in Popular Science that showed the first night vision device that operated on infrared.  The picture of it looked like a clear glass container with wires and such inside so I took a glass canning jar and proceeded to install what I thought replicated what I could see.  Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed when the device didn't work!  At that point in my life I did have a pretty good understanding of electronic components and the basics so it really puzzled me.

Regards,
Pm

[Allcanadian]

Here is the lecture...https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Many mistake Feynman as being part of the "establishment" and he was but in this lecture we can see he was also very critical of it. In fact that was his point and we should be critical of everything including ourselves. Many today reject criticism of any kind, more so regarding there beliefs, however as Feynman points out critical thinking and proof is what real science is all about.

We've learned from experience that the truth will out.  Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right.  Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory.  And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work.  And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.

This hit home as I was building my Adams project and I realized nobody to date has actually built an Adams motor/generator. They have tried to build something that looks it but not the real deal. As Feynman implied, we must first prove the prior art which led to the idea and the device. If we don't prove the prior art first then we have no solid foundation to build on...

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person—to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A—and then change to Y and see if A changed.  Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

I think this is really exciting because I was looking for prior examples of a real Adams motor/generator study/build and found none. All of what we see on the internet is cargo cult science in my opinion. They try to build a look alike, do a few simple tests then conclude it doesn't work but it's never a valid test of what was actually claimed. So I had a great deal of work to do...

Regards
AC

[Vasik041]

Some reading to understand better Mr. Feymann

http://hoaxes.org/comments/papparticle2.html

:-/

[Allcanadian]

Vasik041

Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me.

It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop.

Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion:

In my opinion Mr. Papp was at fault because if he knew the engine and pulling the plug could potentially be dangerous he never should have done it. Papp's story also doesn't add up because if the power was only to the instruments then why pull it?. Deenergizing the instruments should prove nothing with respect to the engines operation so why did the engine blow up?. Papp's story is nonsensical and "instruments" only measure stuff, they don't cause stuff to explode so he was obviously not being honest about what the power cord actually did.

As Feynman's actions go, I don't see that he was at fault. Papp was not being honest about what the power cord was used for or the dangers of unplugging it. The onus was on Papp to ensure everything was safe not Feynman or the other observers.

Here is a clue...

A cone of silvery uniform stuff shot out and turned to smoke. The ruined engine fell over on its side.

It sounds like Papp may have been using powdered metals which are known to be explosive. A cone/cloud of silvery stuff turning to smoke, what else could it be?. Papp claimed it was a fuel-less engine but it may have been a powdered metal engine similar to the gunpowder engine.

Regards
AC

[Vasik041]

what else could it be?

http://www.rohnermachine.com/index.html

[Allcanadian]

Vasik041
The new website can be found here...http://www.rgenergy.com/

They also have a very interesting video on the website which explains many things.

I think I have figured out what there doing and as usual 99% of the stuff we see on the internet is hearsay. As we can see in the video the supposed "spark" is actually a high magnitude electrodynamic discharge.

In the literature Nikola Tesla claimed to be using this same effect to evacuate vacuum tubes. The effect charges matter or gasses in such a way that all matter repels all other matter. So when Tesla applied this discharge to his tubes all the air inside repelled itself rushing from an open end outward leaving a vacuum inside. This Papp technology is really no different and the gasses contained inside expand in a cylinder performing work.

As I said in another post I produced Tesla's radiant matter/radiant discharges and my setup was very similar to the one shown in the video. From what I have seen I suspect the supposedly "rare" (Noble) gasses are not even required. However noble gasses are inert with low chemical reactivity which is what we would want from a working fluid. High energy plasma tends to break down most materials so we would want a very stable working fluid.

I wonder how many people considered that the noble gasses have nothing to do with the work performed but were simply a stable working fluid?. You see we need to be careful and not make too many assumptions about the unknowns in any given device. We need to ask... what are we actually seeing versus what is claimed.

I like these guys and they seem really down to Earth and common sense.

However in the video they seem to be having some issues with regeneration and are only producing short runs. They would do well to integrate the kind of circuit EV Gray was using for sustained operation in my opinion. In the big picture I wouldn't go this route because they would be better off simply building the EV Gray device using an electric motor which is much more reliable. There is also no explosion hazard with an electric motor...

Regards
AC