Posted on 11/14/2011 11:34:43 PM PST by Kevmo
Thanks, I’ve read a couple of pages and that is the sort of thing I was looking for. I’ll read the rest and look forward to the next installment of this thrilling saga.
Do you accept that the Pons Fleischmann effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times?
I wouldn’t worry about it. At least four posters for who I had respect for from their posts have turned out to be petty whiners regarding this subject. I can understand disagreeing with someone but they take it personal. Some people need drama...
Man, you are such a *rick. Look in the mirror for that ego, sheesh.
This is exactly what the skeptic should be pointed to. It's cogent, fair and skeptical. Thank you much. I'll read all of this.
Yes I do.
Then do you think that Focardi had made progress in the Ni-H regime, had demonstrated excess heat associated with the LENR effect, before Rossi teamed up with him?
Do you accept that the PD-D regime was easier to replicate than the Ni-H regime until 2011?
No, but some obscure Chinese scientist does.
If it's legit, needless to say, it's a massive paradigm shift in energy.
This will be my standard post to you that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Well, as far as I can tell, the hard part is accepting that 14,700 figure.
The only thing Rossi did was come up with something that made the effect easier to replicate.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin
1. Jed Rothwell
11:52 AM 6/20/10
Shermer says that Goodstein concluded that cold fusion was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.”
Cold fusion has been replicated in over 180 major laboratories, by roughly 1,500 professional scientists. These replications have been published in roughly 800 papers in mainstream, peer reviewed journals such as J. Electroanal. Chem. and Japanese J. of Applied Physcis. J. He of the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that the effect has been observed in roughly 14,000 experimental runs (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102).
Many of the results were at low signal to noise ratio, but others were high, such as heat from 10 to 100 W, and tritium at 50 times background (Los Alamos, Texas A&M) up to several million times (BARC).
Most of the researchers who have reported positive results are senior, distinguished experts, such as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, government of India, and the experts at Los Alamos in charge of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton. Only senior researchers can get funding because of academic politics.
When a result has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios and reported in the literature, that result is real, by definition. There is no other standard of reality in science. If it were possible for hundreds of scientists in hundreds of laboratories to be wrong, the experimental method would not work, and no result would be meaningful, and science itself would not work. If Shermer and Goodstein would substitute some other standard of truth, and ignore replication and peer-review, they are engaged in some form of faith-based religion or a popularity contest, not science.
I think that what we’re going to see is that the process isn’t sufficiently energetic to justify the waste of the nickle on large scale operations.
***That’s an interesting perspective. Do you have a COP cutoff point that you consider to be “sufficiently energetic”? Would it mean you think this is a chemical reaction?
This will be my standard post to you that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
And I still recommend it to skeptics. I believe that material is a fair an honest presentation by the author. It contains all of the information I thought I needed plus a wealth of observation and some pretty cool pictures. The analysis of possible fake energy sources looks to first order to be pretty complete. On the whole the document looks like a pretty competent effort by somebody trying to be objective. He does gush a bit to much in places to be taken seriously by some but the material is exciting if true so a little gush can be forgiven.
I have thoughts about the technical content. I'd like to ask you some questions about it after I sleep on it. I realize that you are not the source of the information, just the conduit. But you appear to be a rational and well informed conduit and I promise to try to ask interesting questions. Again, thanks for the pointer.
Inability to lift the output above the noise band seems a major source of doubt for many.
Some observations. The calorimetry appears to be generally awful. I'd throw right out all of the phase change ones simply because you can have non-phase change measurements that aren't subject to dispute. That still leaves experiments where the excess energy relative to the input is interesting without having taken a detailed look at the possible stored energy. A detailed look is possible since that data is provided. Better heat measurements would be nice.
On a PR note, I'd lose all arguments of the form "how could your fool n scientists". As a scientist I would say that we are fooled pretty damn easily as a class. Nature is subtle, not deceptive and we aren't inclined to look for the lie. If I were an investor and could send one guy to examine the apparatus it would be the magician Penn Gillette. I'd tag along too of course, it's Italy.
Another thing I'd lose is the Conan-Doyle quote. When I have actually found myself in that situation in the past, having though I'd eliminated the possible, it was usually a failure of imagination. The more common error is to fail to see a possibility as existing at all and thus miss it.
Generally I'd avoid all appeals to authority as a form of argumentation. Some of the data looks pretty good. What is needed is more and better data to make the case. I trust the guys currently running the independent tests to do them honestly. Cases of individuals committing scientific fraud occur often enough that I have personally seen more than one. Groups of three I haven't seen or heard of yet so I am in principal happy with three guys doing independent testing. Most likely they are not colluding. Are there any plans to do more tests with better calorimetry?
This is interesting information. It should have its own thread. Go ahead and post it and we can debate over the facts on the ground.Since the article you posted went into some detail about the nuclear process supposedly involved, I thought this was an appropriate place to post this information. I'm not in the habit of "flooding" FR with posts of every little thing related to Rossi.
The information is there, I found it, I used it to understand the science. That is all that matters. What you and your ilk fail to understand is that the specific "no-steam" experiment was run to answer one question, and one question only.......was there a "steam quality" problem with the "steam" calorimetric approach. The experiment was "quick and dirty" to answer that single question. It wasn't designed to be "publishable". The only people the answer had to satisfy were Levi and Rossi. Of course, running the experiment that entirely different way also answered a number of other "hypothetical failures" later postulated by the pathological skeptics.
This isn't about writing a lab report for a class, or even a paper for publication, it was about answering a technical question so a business decision could be made. It accomplished that.
There is (and was) no "failing" in the test metholology. That was just fine. For the rest.....see post 138.
No more than you. I look in the mirror every morning. "I" am not demanding that anyone who wishes to "address me" in a reply re-format and re-calculate the information to fit a specific straight-jacket before I'll "deign" to view it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.