Posted on 06/15/2021 9:08:02 AM PDT by Kevmo
Laser induced transmutation in palladium thin films in hydrogen atmosphere
Jean-Paul Biberian 1, Pamela Mosier-Boss 2, Larry Forsley2, 1 Aix-Marseille University, France 2 Global Energy Corporation, U.S.A.
E-mail: jpbiberian@tahoo.fr
Ubaldo Mastromatteo [1], published in 2016 a very simple experiment where he directed a laser beam on a thin film of palladium deposited on a silicon oxide substrate in H2 and D2 atmospheres. By SEM he showed formation of many new elements. Recently we did the same experiment with identical samples in H2 and D2.
Both experiments in H2 and D2 atmosphere lasted 3 months. We used a 5mW laser at 650nm. In this presentation, we will show the formation of hot spots detected by SEM and analyzed by EDX. Also, we did look for neutron formation with CR39 detectors. Finally, a TOF-SIMS analysis showed some isotopic anomalies.
References: [1] U. Mastromatteo, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 19 (2016) 173–182 .
No, it means that you and and Kevmo have zero tolerance for anyone who has even the slightest skepticism about a “technology” that Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann whipped up interest in over 30 years ago. What you two apparently want is not actually a discussion. I have never seen another thread where the first two posts contain preemptive threats against anyone that might challenge the premise that the original poster is pushing.
It seems that the two of you have taken a cue from “global warming” forums where no skepticism is allowed. What an advance in understanding those types of discussions have led to! It is called an echo chamber.
Low-energy nuclear reactions, LENR has been a darling of the left, Hollywood and the media for over 30 years. What actual advances have been made in that time? We have charlatans such as Andrea Rossi who have made claims and put on demonstrations for decades now but somehow never manage to actually provide a working device or anything else that can be independently verified. Independently verified means verification without interference from the so called inventors not staged demonstrations.
The original link provided is a cute but essentially meaningless waste of people's time. I could provide you with many “global warming” demonstrations that are more extravagant and convincing but meaningless as well.
Do I really need to remind the two of you of Wolfgang von Kempelen‘s chess playing “Mechanical Turk”, a fraud that went essentially unchallenged for many decades? During that time numerous demonstrations were given that supposedly proved that this hand cranked automated chess playing device was able to beat numerous champions of the time period. The hoax was not uncovered for over 15 years after Kempelen‘s death meaning that he had multiple accomplices that kept it going.
No discussion of a “technology” such as LENR which has been tainted from the beginning by characters such as Andrea Rossi his team of accomplices is complete without reminders of possible fraud. Who knows how many billions of dollars have now been thrown down this rat hole because of their efforts. The US Department of Energy concluded after a review in 1989 and again in 2004 that there was no convincing evidence provided that LENR was a feasible new source of energy.
I realize that you two are enthusiasts who want to believe in a new unlimited, inexpensive, and “carbon-less” energy future. Don't we all? If you don't want comments from your fellow Freepers there is this thing called “Freepmail”. Starting a thread with warnings that no skepticism will be allowed and then responding with nonsensical name calling is not the way that Free Republic works. This type of tactic is actually challenging and I believe intentionally inviting this type of reaction.
Signed, Seagull15
Warthog: It means you are a fake “skeptic”, whose sole purpose on thread is to disrupt civil discussion.
Fireman15: No, it means that you and and Kevmo have zero tolerance for anyone who has even the slightest skepticism
***Bullshiite. We constantly remind you to open your own threads and have at it. Some of you have done so. I’ve even opened very skeptical oriented threads in the past like the one examining all the ways Rossi could have been cheating such as the Tarallo Water Fake. Your purpose is to derail conversation.
about a “technology”
***There you go again. It is a scientific pursuit, not a technology yet. Keep your snide bullshiite on your own bullshiite skeptopath threads.
that Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann whipped up interest in over 30 years ago.
***2 of the most prominent electrochemists, followed by about the top 100 electrochemists in the field (all but Jones) and then loudly shouted down by physicists who last did electrolysis in undergrad days.
What you two apparently want is not actually a discussion.
***Straw argument. We know what we want, and you’re arguing against what you PERCEIVE we want rather than what we have ACTUALLY stated we want. Go ahead and open your own bullshiite skeptopath threads and see where the discussion goes.
I have never seen another thread where the first two posts contain preemptive threats against anyone that might challenge the premise that the original poster is pushing.
***You have apparently not been on the Qanonsense threads where the mods are VERY aggressive in kicking out people who disagree with those bozos. There are also religion threads. JimRob says these rules apply to any contentious threads. So come up to speed and deal with it.
It seems that the two of you have taken a cue from “global warming” forums where no skepticism is allowed.
***I haven’t seen that here on FR. It would surprise me to find this to be the case.
What an advance in understanding those types of discussions have led to!
***Straw argument, yet again. We have plenty of LENR theory threads where you skeptopaths don’t inhabit, presumably because you lack the intellectual capacity.
It is called an echo chamber.
***Take it up with JimRob. He’s the one who set up the rule and apparently he’s the one who takes it very seriously on Qanonsense threads.
Low-energy nuclear reactions, LENR has been a darling of the
***darling of scientists who are no longer beholden to their paying patrons in the standard science careers....
left,
***Squew that. LENR stuff rarely ventures into politics and the only real political bullshiite is the hot-fusion boys playing hardball science-politics to protect their turf.
Hollywood and the media for over 30 years.
***This is a complete bullshiite argument that needs its own skeptopathy thread. That garbage is not welcome here, take it to your own corner.
What actual advances have been made in that time?
***About 150 peer-reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleishmann Anomalous Heat Effect [PFAHE]. Google and some major corporations getting involved, filing patents.
We have charlatans such as Andrea Rossi
***Google didn’t call Rossi a charlatan. Take it up with them. Because of you seagulls I haven’t posted a Rossi-written article in about a decade.
who have made claims and put on demonstrations for decades now
***But we are not given the breathing space to discuss the technical developments here on FR because of activist skeptopath seagulls like you.
but somehow never manage to actually provide a working device
***How exactly do you demo something if it isn’t a ‘working device’?
or anything else that can be independently verified.
***The PFAHE has been replicated in peer reviewed journals more than 150 times.
Independently verified means verification without interference from the so called inventors not staged demonstrations.
***Your problem is that you’re judging LENR by only looking at Rossi. LENR was replicated more than 150 times before Rossi came along, but you’re silent on that because your goal is to disrupt these threads.
The original link provided is a cute but essentially meaningless waste of people’s time.
***Then leave us alone to waste our own time, start your own skeptopath threads to waste YOUR time.
I could provide you with many “global warming” demonstrations that are more extravagant and convincing but meaningless as well.
***Go ahead and do that if it’s what you like to do, seagull on everyone else’s threads. It’s a meaningless invalid analogy for the LENR threads.
Do I really need to remind the two of you of Wolfgang von Kempelen‘s chess playing “Mechanical Turk”,
***Immaterial, irrelevant, invalid reasoning. The mechanical turk was not replicated 153 times in peer reviewed journals.
a fraud that went essentially unchallenged for many decades?
***By all means, open up your own skeptopath thread dedicated to this bullshiite. It is simply an invalid analogy.
During that time numerous demonstrations were given that supposedly proved that this hand cranked automated chess playing device was able to beat numerous champions of the time period.
***I really don’t freeping care about this invalid analogy.
The hoax was not uncovered for over 15 years after Kempelen‘s death meaning that he had multiple accomplices that kept it going.
***Gigantic So WHAT. Open your OWN thread on it.
No discussion of a “technology” such as LENR which has been tainted from the beginning by characters such as Andrea Rossi
***Factually WRONG. The PFAHE was replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed journals before Rossi came along.
his team of accomplices is complete without reminders of possible fraud.
***What you’re not noticing is that the Cold Fusion ping list doesn’t ping to Rossi’s articles, not for a whole decade or so. How long does it take to get you skeptopaths to start acting like reasonable and polite FReepers? Apparently more than a whole FReeping decade.
Who knows how many billions of dollars have now been thrown down this rat hole because of their efforts.
***The hot-fusion boys are into the hundreds of $Billions of PUBLIC money with no Mr. Fusion devices to show for it. The LENR folks are into a few hundred $Million of PRIVATE money with breakeven attained.
The US Department of Energy concluded after a review in 1989 and again in 2004 that there was no convincing evidence provided that LENR was a feasible new source of energy.
***Go ahead and open a thread on it, if it is so convincing to you.
I realize that you two are enthusiasts who want to believe in a new unlimited, inexpensive, and “carbon-less” energy future. Don’t we all?
***Then at the very least, open your own thread to “correct” our supposed “misunderstandings”. You guys barely even do that. Your purpose is to shut down scientific discussion.
If you don’t want comments from your fellow Freepers there is this thing called “Freepmail”.
***JimRob generated the rule. You don’t like it, take it up with JimRob.
Starting a thread with warnings that no skepticism will be allowed
***It does not say that. Skepticism is allowed but skeptopathism is not. You guys constantly cross that line and the easy way to tell when you’ve crossed it is to see whether you have been asked to leave these threads. Simple.
and then responding with nonsensical name calling is not the way that Free Republic works.
***It works this way on Qanonsense threads, and on any contentious threads so get lost.
This type of tactic is actually challenging and I believe intentionally inviting this type of reaction.
***We have been the subject of seagulling for a decade and it’s time for you guys to stop doing it. Simple.
Signed, Seagull15
***See what we’re talkin’ about? You’re an acknowledged seagull so get lost.
Past experience of many other threads proves you wrong. CIVIL discussion of HARD DATA is and always has been welcome, but thanks to guys like you, has never been allowed to happen.
Read your own comments for proof.
And despite the "150 peer-reviewed replications" that you claim verified the work Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann there is still nothing that shows that this is a viable energy source. This is after over 30+ years passing, massive amounts of interest and massive amounts of money being spent.
Then you follow up with numerous foul mouthed rants and claims of conspiracies and the conduct of others, etc... Boy you really know how to make a technical argument! There are probably 100s of times as many peer reviewed papers that supposedly verify that man caused global warming is causing irreparable damage to the planet. Yet they too are mostly based on false premises that lead to incorrect conclusions.
If you really do have something of interest to share... in the future you might consider telling us in your own words why you believe what you are sharing is an important development. I have appreciated many of the threads that you have shared in the past. The way you started this thread and the "points" that you just made in post I am currently responding to, demonstrate only that you desire to make proclamations and want only positive affirmations to follow. The scientific method not only invites skepticism it relies on it. You have what appears to be a belief system that borders on religious beliefs. This results in only confirmation bias inducing faulty conclusions. I once believed that you had more mature and grounded reasoning.
I would suggest that you follow the following link:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/cold_fusion.pdf
It seems very even handed in explaining what went wrong.
Here is an excerpt from the end of the piece:
"An error like this would normally be detected before it caused an uproar in the scientific and broader communities. However, in the case of cold fusion, the checks inherent in the process of science were weakened when Pons, Fleischmann, and others caught up in the excitement broke with norms for good scientific conduct (Fig. 27). While the process of science is resilient to a single, or even a few divergences from best practices, the convergence of multiple infractions can hinder the process. The journal editor who allowed the original article to be published with minimal peer review did not adhere to the standards science had set for such publications. Pons and Fleischmann withheld experimental details from the community and tried to shield their ideas from testing. They and the other scientists who “reproduced” cold fusion, only to later retract their results, failed to perform adequate tests to evaluate their ideas. And, of course, Pons’ behavior during the helium experiment, as well as the broken publication agreement with Jones, smacked of dishonesty (Fig. 27). It’s important to note that even with such unscientific behavior, the process of science still worked. "
" Within a year, the scientific community had investigated Pons and Fleischmann’s claims and come to the consensus that what had been observed wasn’t really cold fusion. However, there was still a price to pay for this misconduct: time, energy, and upwards of 100 million tax dollars were squandered on cold fusion."
" Pons and Fleischmann also did damage that is harder to quantify. Perhaps most worrying is the effect that this debacle had on the public’s perception of science. Pons and Fleischmann’s unclear statements at the press conference, which emphasized only the future benefits of cold fusion and not the early stage of the investigation, contributed to the media hype and raised society’s expectations without warrant. These unmet expectations coupled with accusations of fraud and dishonesty damaged the public’s trust in science. Because science is so deeply intertwined with the broader community, scientific misbehavior has implications far beyond the group of physicists and chemists who study cold fusion. Despite all this, somescientists continueto investigatethe possibility of cold fusion. Science doesn’t give up on ideas that have merit, even if they experience setbacks. All scientific knowledge is, after all, tentative. So though there is every reason to think that what Pons and Fleischmann observed was not cold fusion, some scientists (though a small minority of the physics community) continue to investigate whether or not cold fusion is possible. But to convince the rest of the physics community, they’ll need to find many lines of solid evidence to support their views."
I suggest that you read your own comments for an example of someone who obviously prefers no rational comments from anyone skeptical of the snake oil that you believe in.
Don’t waste your time and mine with this inanity. Get lost.
What does it take to get rid of seagulls on FR?
Ignoring them.
They gang up, like seagulls. Their aim is to shut down legitimate scientific discussion.
We learned on Certifigate threads they are here against constitutional, conservative,
and truth-pursuit principles, so ignoring them is no longer an option.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2168149/posts
Asked & Answered
“https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
Only the science matters, not the opinions of naysayers. Results, facts, measurements, observations. The rest is drivel.
The primary topic discussed on this thread can be summarized as complaining about those who are not true believers. Thank goodness that a couple of us showed up to ask legitimate questions and make legitimate observations or you and your two admirers would have had nothing to discuss.
You never provided the answer to the question that most reasonable people have when they take a peak at thread on a technical subject. Why did the original poster believe in this case that this video was significant in some way? You made no attempt to explain that in your own words. What we got instead were warnings that if we were not impressed that we should not comment or participate in the conversation.
You and your minions act like children who think that they are part of an exclusive club. Is that the way that you believe discussions on scientific matters should be conducted?
seagulls have been asked to leave this thread
Just leave.
Science has a protocol. Conservatism has a protocol.
Apparently there is a protocol that overrides both of them, the protocol of the gang @$$#0/e.
What you call protocol Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir called pathological science.
“Langmuir coined the term more than 50 years ago to describe a psychological process in which scientists unconsciously veer away from the scientific method and become so engrossed in what they are doing they develop an inability to be objective and see what is real and not real. Pathological science is “the science of things that aren't so,” Langmuir said. In some cases, it is embodied in areas of research like cold fusion/LENR that simply will not go away, even when given up on as false by a majority of scientists.”
“I hope they're right,” Wilk says about Mills and BLP. “I really do. I'm not out to debunk them, just to get at the truth.” For the sake of the argument—“if pigs could fly,” as Wilk puts it, he says he'll accept their data, their theory, and other predictions that can be derived from them. But he has never been a true believer. “I think if hydrinos existed, they would have been detected by others in laboratories or in nature years ago and would be used by now.”
Quote from near the end of the following link:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i44/Cold-fusion-died-25-years.html
And I do apologize that any attempt made to introduce factual matters into this "discussion" causes such distress.
This “freeper” has been asked multiple times to leave these threads.
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.