Click the Pup
You haven't donated, have you!
Donate monthly and help eliminate FReepathons
Sponsors will bark up $10 each time a new monthly donor signs up
Posted on 03/30/2012 5:10:35 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
You must figure that posting numerous blog links makes up for the lack quality. If you would drop the hype and reliance on the attention given to frauds and scams, you could make a pretty good case for temperature anomalies as others have done, but not for fusion. Nobody has done that.
My point is going from using heavy water as a deuterium source to using deuterium gas as a deuterium source takes very little in the way of innovative thought. Anybody with half a brain could do it, but apparently that’s above your level.
You really should actually click through and look at the actual data, rather than just reading the URL's and assuming "blog entries". The first link is to a preprint of a scientific review of the field of cold fusion by Storms that was published in Naturwissenshaften. The second link is to a similar but older review, also published. The third is a summary of Storm's own work at LANL. The fourth is to a "student guide" to Cold Fusion. The fifth is an update to the "student guide". ALL of those links have extensive references to actual published science. The last link is to the actual Naturwissenschaften article that was published.
But once again, you just "can't be bothered" to actually look at the evidence.
"If you would drop the hype and reliance on the attention given to frauds and scams, you could make a pretty good case for temperature anomalies as others have done, but not for fusion. Nobody has done that."
Sorry, but wrong. Quite a few studies have shown beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Pd/D system produces He4, and that the production of He4 is proportional to the excess heat generated. That certainly looks like "fusion" to me. References to those studies are found in the links posted. The Ni-H system is more of a mystery as to what the mechanism is.
Your "point" is, as usual, blunt. "If" the NASA work had actually been published, instead of being shelved into obscurity in the bowels of "papers nobody looks at", the connection would have been made much sooner. "My" point isn't the use of gas-loading of D2, but in the use of the widely commercially available palladium purifier as a research tool into the phenomenon....a mode of experiment that apparently "was" overlooked by pretty much everybody. This easy commercial availability of an "off the shelf" research tool would have accelerated the replication by many years.
Which studies? How about some excerpts or specific references? One quality reference is worth more than the hundreds of claims you make.
That certainly looks like "fusion" to me.
The human body produces more heat, pound for pound, than the Sun. That looks like fusion too, but it isn't. From what I've read, most of the cold fusion crowd is no longer claiming fusion either.
The only conclusion that can be made is that cold fusion investigators are poor researchers, lazy, and not too bright. The bad reputation of the cold fusion field is self inflicted.
The Storms review covers the topic thoroughly and with extensive references. Why should I attempt to do what someone else has already done more thoroughly?? The fact that you are either too lazy or too biased to actually examine the existing evidence is readily apparent from your responses.
"The human body produces more heat, pound for pound, than the Sun. That looks like fusion too, but it isn't. From what I've read, most of the cold fusion crowd is no longer claiming fusion either.
Duh. More obfuscation. It isn't just heat, bubba. But again, you refuse to even read the evidence. Nobody uses the term "fusion" because of the negative connotations put on it by you skeptopaths.
Yup. They could have. But they didn't. Ingenious approaches that result in the "palm-forehead" slap and the blurting of "damn, why didn't "I" think of that" happen every day.
The same end result was ultimately reached...it just took more time and wasn't done as elegantly.
"The only conclusion that can be made is that cold fusion investigators are poor researchers, lazy, and not too bright. The bad reputation of the cold fusion field is self inflicted.
Not. Guys like you work very hard to inflict that reputation, as you continue to do here. You are simply grossly intellectual dishonest, and a waste of time.
A few days is believable, but over 20 years isn't.
Guys like you work very hard to inflict that reputation, as you continue to do here. You are simply grossly intellectual dishonest, and a waste of time.
I'm the one who wants to cut the hype and the scams, yet I'm the one who's dishonest and wasting time. I can make a better case for LENR than you.
You must never have gotten a patent (or failed to get one). If what you think was true, no patents would be issued, because everything unique would have "already been invented".
The tokamak boys are running up on half a century, and have yet to deliver. The inertial confinement guys have a better track record...just about the equal of cold fusion. But in the two former instances, untold billions of dollars have been spent to reach the current level of technology. The cold fusion work has been FAR more "economically efficient" by several orders of magnitude
"I'm the one who wants to cut the hype and the scams, yet I'm the one who's dishonest and wasting time.
So, all the hundreds of research papers referenced in the Storms review article are "hype and scams"?? And the much larger bibliography in his book are all equally "hype and scams" also??.
In that case, precisely what would constitute "proof" for you that cold fusion was real??
"I can make a better case for LENR than you."
LOL. You haven't even made a good case "against" cold fusion.
Unsupported claims are economically efficient for the scammer and the washed up scientist looking for cheap attention. Accountable work consumes much more time, effort, and money.
So, all the hundreds of research papers referenced in the Storms review article are "hype and scams"?? And the much larger bibliography in his book are all equally "hype and scams" also??
There you go again. An appeal to quantity is hype. Pick the best experiment and make your case. As an example, the 1989 NASA memo is the best link you've posted. The claim for a very small and brief temperature anomaly is believable.
In that case, precisely what would constitute "proof" for you that cold fusion was real??
I'm beginning to think that you don't know what fusion is. Why do you think most in the field are calling it LENR? They're giving up on their always unsupported claim that it was fusion.
You haven't even made a good case "against" cold fusion.
I'm not trying to make a case against cold fusion. Scammers and hypers, OTOH...
I'm perfectly willing to do that once you tell me what you believe constitutes proof. I'm not going to do a blind dance trying to meet some unknown criterion. Put up or shut up.
"I'm beginning to think that you don't know what fusion is. Why do you think most in the field are calling it LENR? They're giving up on their always unsupported claim that it was fusion."
I know precisely what fusion is, and the data on the ground says that in the case of the Pd/D2 system, most of what is going on is classic fusion....two deuterons fusing to yield a He4 atom and energy. That reaction is well supported by reasearch. Storm's review includes a specific section laying out the case....but you refuse to read the evidence.
For the Ni/H2 case, the mechanism is pretty much unknown...it may be fusion, it may be fusion plus fission...inadequate data. And I don't like the term LENR. I prefer LANR, which is both precise and accurate.
"I'm not trying to make a case against cold fusion. Scammers and hypers, OTOH...
And thus you lie again. You have bashed EVERY mention of CF/LENR on this forum indiscriminately.
If you don't know what quality is by now, and Lord knows I've tried to teach you, then I can't help further if you won't try.
BTW, it doesn't help that Edmund Storms has endorsed the Rossi and Blacklight scams. No wonder you lack confidence.
I assume you're referring to the Fralick NASA 1989 experiment. What about that experiment was it that you thought elevated it into "acceptability"?? It certainly can't be "peer review", as the only "peer review" it received was from his NASA superiors.
Why is Fralick's evidence convincing, and Miley's very similar (in both process and results), not convincing.
"If you don't know what quality is by now, and Lord knows I've tried to teach you, then I can't help further if you won't try.
I know what "quality" is. I do it every day and design instruments to implement it. What I'm trying to figure out is what "quality" means to YOU.
"BTW, it doesn't help that Edmund Storms has endorsed the Rossi and Blacklight scams. No wonder you lack confidence.
Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.
The 1989 memo reports a negative result. They were looking for neutrons, and found none. They even recommended some readers to stop reading the memo halfway through. It's obvious that their report of anomalous temperature isn't motivated by anything like money or hype.
Miley on the other hand has joined the bandwagon of cold fusion hypesters by making informal unsupported claims and gets ripped apart here.
I know what "quality" is. I do it every day and design instruments to implement it.
Which is nothing more than "Warthog says." It's certainly not supported by your posts here on FR. Let's take a look at an example:
Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.Apparently your idea of quality is defined by the success of scams.
No, the 1989 reports a POSITIVE result for excess heat without neutrons, but failed to publicize that result due to the "physicist shitstorm" that you are continuing here. Fortunately, they FINALLY realized that the result WAS actually positive, repeated the work successfully, and then publicized it.
"Miley on the other hand has joined the bandwagon of cold fusion hypesters by making informal unsupported claims and gets ripped apart here.
? LOL. You cite KRIVIT, the business major?? The guy on a crusade to pillory any person in the LENR field who doesn't "endorse" Widom-Larsen??
All I see there is that Miley himself is saying his results aren't yet peer-reviewed. Researchers mention preliminary results all the time. The appropriate response is to wait until the peer-reviewed information "is" published.
But I also see this:
"Miley explained the experiment to me. Essentially, it is a replication of the Arata-style gas-loading experiment that has been replicated by a number of LENR researchers, particularly at Kobe University, Japan. New Energy Times reported on this in 2008. The Kobe researchers also published their results in Physics Letters A in August 2009."
Hmmmm....yet more successful replications of a non-existent phenomenon, duly reported in the peer-reviewed science literature.
"Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.
It's called HUMOR, idiot.
"Apparently your idea of quality is defined by the success of scams."
Actually, my idea of quality is defined by the data presented. I seriously doubt that Storms has "endorsed" either Rossi or Mills. I suspect that his real sin (according to you) is to have mentioned them at all without saying "they're scams".
I haven't followed Blacklight much at all. I vaguely recall seeing that his experimental results had been reproduced, and I think the replication was done by NASA. Note that Mills "fractional" quantum levels may be BS as the physics community thinks....but what matters is whether the experimental data was replicated. The theoretical basis of the results mean precisely zip.
But you're still ducking the issue. What set of factors in a paper will you accept as reasonable proof?? You're already said that peer review is irrelevant. And I'm afraid that "papers that present wrongly-identified "negative" results" is a bit too limiting.
Each experiment would have to be judged on its own merits. If you don't have good judgement by now (and your posts suggest you don't), then I can't help. Much of it comes from life experience. I can give you a hint that using a 90 year old former scientist, who endorses scams, as a source isn't a good move.
So I should disregard the large section of the article that comes under the heading: Miley's Distinguished History?
Krivit tries to help Miley out of his jam:
On Dec. 3, in the absence of a chance to learn from Miley directly in a phone call, I began looking at his slides. I saw some things that seemed to explain the discrepancy. I sent Miley another inquiry.And then Krivit is actually being generous by allowing Miley to claim 8 watts, when the slides indicate that it was only 2 watts.I asked him, "When you said, 'At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts,' did you omit to state at the end of that sentence 'per kilogram of material'? In other words, would it have been more correct to say, 'At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts per kilogram of material'"?
Finally Krivit allows one last excuse:
"I think that George has found a mistake in his grad student's work," Cravens wrote. "She was rushing due to the baby delivery."Instead of a "crusade to pillory" Krivit is doing everything possible to help out yet another scientist who has turned into a cold fusion clown.
LOL. REAL science "does" have standards for judgment that "do" apply to all experiments. One of them happens to be "peer review", which you claim doesn't matter.
"Each experiment would have to be judged on its own merits. If you don't have good judgement by now (and your posts suggest you don't), then I can't help. Much of it comes from life experience.
LOL. And yet you claim that MY life experience doesn't matter, but yours is paramount. I don't think so.
I can give you a hint that using a 90 year old former scientist, who endorses scams, as a source isn't a good move."
Please provide proof that Storms has "endorsed scams". The simple fact that he mentions the topics in a review does NOT "endorse scams".
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.