Posted on 07/23/2013 3:53:51 PM PDT by Kevmo
ICCF-18 Day 2: Strong Claims and Rebuttals [Traductor]
The second day of ICCF-18 was a full one, beginning at 7:45AM and ending at 7PM. Eli and I filmed all the lectures, and spoke with some researchers one-on-one.
It will take a while to get video out; there’s lots of permissions to be granted, and after filming for 13 hours, editing is not the first thing on our minds!
But we got some pictures and audio for you dear reader.
Keynote speeches by David Kidwell and James Truchard started the day.
DSC_2172David Kidwell spoke on Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research at the Naval Research Laboratory, and it was a sobering lecture first thing in the morning. Kidwell attempted to bring enthusiastic researchers back to reality by reminding them that their number one job is to “try to prove themselves wrong.”
He stresses that hard scrutiny of data sets is necessary to trust the results of your measurement, because instrumental artifacts can skew interpretations. He went through several examples of experiments where anomalous measurements were made, seemingly pointing to transmutation effects, but were due to contamination.
Kidwell claimed the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has observed no evidence of nuclear products or transmutations from LENR experiments, but they still believe the phenomenon needs further study.
Kidwell’s claims of doubt about data reported by both Yasuhiro Iwamura and the Martin Flesichmann Memorial Project (MFMP) were soundly countered by Iwamura and Bob Greenyer of MFMP in the question period after the lecture. Still, the point was not lost on the audience: look skeptically at your own data to make it iron-clad.
DSC_1961James Truchard‘s talk on The Role of National Instruments in the Global Environment was a tour of National Instruments hardware, software, and applications that support research in the field. “Ours is to measure, not to judge” is the motto of the company and Truchard repeatedly stated that he remains “objective” and “neutral” on scientific issues, prefering to let the data speak to the phenomenon.
Around 35,000 companies use NI products, but no one industry has greater than 15% of the billion+ dollar revenue. The company grew from Truchard’s work in the 60s on sonar, and now serves businesses from LEGO toys to CERN particle research. LabView software has been available free to cold fusion researchers since 1989, when Truchard wanted to support the understanding of the claims.
DSC_2237Next up was Edmund Storms, who spoke about the requirements a theory to explain cold fusion must have in Explaining Cold Fusion. Originally an experimentalist, Storms has developed a theory “out of disappointment” with other models that couldn’t tell him how to make the reaction work on-demand.
Seeing most theories containing too many assumptions, he makes clear three of his own. First, since cold fusion doesn’t happen easily in ordinary materials, there must be some change in then environment before a reaction can occur. He calls this the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE).
Second, Storms assumes that all the phenomenon seen in Pd-D systems, Ni-H systems, and biological systems dervie from the same basic nuclear mechanism. Any theory must apply to each method that generates both excess heat and transmutations.
Finally, he assumes that cold fusion is not hot fusion.
Storms believes that reactions fall within the known laws of nature, and the task is to find out what’s missing.
It was a strong challenge to the many theorists in the audience who have been struggling to model this reaction for two-and-a-half decades, many of whom will speak in the next few days. a theory will bring clear direction to engineering applications for consumer products, something we all are waiting for.
DSC_2262Right after Storms’ talk, he was honored with a Distinguished Scientist Award. His career in nuclear science began in the 1960s and he worked on projects that sought power rockets to Mars, among other lofty goals, and always, as success approached, funding was cut, and the project forgotten.
Storms’ joked that now that he has been working on cold fusion, he hopes the same thing doesn’t occur.
DSC_2340After a morning break, Jean-Paul Biberian described the cell design for his plasma-style reactors, as well as the parameter values that make it work with high reproducibility. Cathode material and dimension, the nature and composition of the electrolyte, pressure and temperature, voltage and current, are all elements that effect the outcome.
These types of cells are good for demonstrations because they start up quickly, but unfortunately, with this design, the cathode is destroyed quickly, making the duration limited.
DSC_2376Then it was lunchtime, where we walked to a cathedral-style building to eat, and Jed Rothwell spoke on Lessons from Cold Fusion Archives and From History.
He made the claims, again, that cold fusion is real, replicable, and undoubtedly more developed than it was many years ago, descibing the problem early on as a materials issue.
Full of anecdotes about Martin Fleischmann, there was a lot of laffs amidst the serious message: “do your homework” and “don’t be afraid to ask for help”.
At lunch, I happened to sit next to Jacques Dufour, former scientist at Shell Oil and French Laboratoire Des Sciences Nucléaires (CNAM), now retired. I asked him about nuclear power in France, and if there is any support for research from the federal government there. Here’s a bit of our conversation.
Just before leaving, I happened to bump into Fabrice David, who described his technology that is generating direct electricity from diodes exposed to an ambient deuterium gas, with no input. Self-Polarisation of Fusion Diodes: From Excess Energy to Energy by Fabrice David and John Giles describes the circuit. [.pdf]
DSC_2614 There were so many more talks, and I got video and audio with heavywieghts Akito Takahashi, Mahadeva Srinivasan, Xing Zhong Li, and Mitchell Swartz.
But it’s too late to say more now…. We start again in less than six hours!
Here’s some photos of the day:
ICCF-18, Missouri University, Credibility & Defkalion GT
July 20, 2013
For the last 2 1/2 decades, cold fusion has been considered a fringe science. Placed alongside UFOs and the Loch Ness monster, it has been easy to attack this controversial subject. A common tactic is to denigrate those involved as idiots, incompetent, fraudulent, or merely misguided. There is a logic trap here. When a scientist dares to take a serious look and concludes that there is something worth investigating he or she is then labelled an insider and therefore suspect. Such was the fate of Prof Robert Duncan, now Vice Chancellor of research at the University of Missouri after he investigated cold fusion at the request of CBS’s 60 minutes. Thus we are reassured that the status quo is reinforced and that newcomers looking through the window can be certain that only freaks live there.
Slowly, slowly things are changing. Although the science is hardly settled at least there are signs that low-energy nuclear reactions are beginning to be taken seriously as a field to be studied. Since Duncan’s conversion, Missouri University has received a $5.5 million grant from philanthropist Sidney Kimmel to open a cold fusion research centre. Today, if you visit the University homepage you will be greeted with a large image advertising ICCF 18, this years annual cold fusion conference to be held there next week. The accompanying article does not hold back by using weak language. It is written by someone unafraid of the brick bats and stones lesser men would pelt him with.
Duncan says of LENR, “It has been undervalued and treated as a pariah science in the past, but now the world is beginning to realise how important it is.”
This is a welcome development. The University is to be congratulated and I agree with everything Duncan says. I also fully understand why a company such as Defkalion GT with their extraordinarily claims might be invited. However, that comes with a caveat. I sincerely hope that my scepticism is misplaced but the announcement of a demonstration by DGT would have been welcome long-ago. Now I cannot help but recall the previous promises that came to naught. Their presentation at National instruments last year was a complete disappointment and the audience were too easy on them IMHO. Confident talk about theory on the far reaches of credibility was a poor substitute for a believable demonstration. Perhaps next week’s announced demo will tick that box and my fears will prove unfounded. Those who have worked so hard to bring the science in from the cold should be wary of giving it all away too easily. Defkalion has much to gain by associating themselves with the likes of NI and ICCF but the benefit will only go the other way if the company steps up to the plate and delivers more than words or views of mock hardware.
Are we about to see something remarkable from Defkalion? I’ve given up expecting anything worthwhile from them but this is their chance to prove me wrong. I truly hope they do.
So, did Kidwell tell you that NRL has essentially banned this type of research? I’ve known Dave Kidwell for a number of years and his group very well. In fact, I know all three electrochemistry groups at NRL well, particularly all of the ECS members and the principles. Of course I also know the electrochemistry groups at the NSWCs, ONR and BNL.
And what about the Navy group that was just issued a patent on transmutation by LENR?? What did Herr Kidwell say about that and them?? Or did you bother to ask?? Politics gets played everywhere, even in “Navy Labs”.
Kidwell and his group led by Dr. Hubler have tried to reproduce experiments and have found the results quite lacking. These folks are serious scientists. I know most involved in the work from my efforts at NRL, many of them personal and very friendly basis. Your gibberish seems to imply Dave’s complicity is such activity — when anyone that knows him or his group at NRL — knows that they find this scholarship, well, not. As for the folks at SPAWAR item, good for them. If you want to hang your hat on that, go for it. Yeah! They have applied for a patent! You can dang near get a patent on anything if you know how to go about it. That’s not according to me, that is the consensus of the 10-15 patent examiners that I know, again personally, in Alexandria (where I lived for years). So it has been fun blowing you up again. Keynote speaker indeed! That’s like having Steve Jobs as the Keynote Speaker at a Microsoft Convention. Too funny. So this is an example of why some people think that you have a lack of credibility. You Sir, are not practicing science, you are cheerleading again and frankly insinuating specious claims more akin to a bus of 13 year old cheerleaders trying to talk over each other. Now I am off to sleep. I have an 8-figure proposal to review and approve tomorrow.
And you've seen and read the reports from both sides, I presume (NOT). If not, then what you have is called "hearsay evidence" in lawyerese. Scietific validity = zero.
"These folks are serious scientists. I know most involved in the work from my efforts at NRL, many of them ersonal and very friendly basis.
So were Fleischmann, Bockris, Storms, Srinivasan, Duncan, and on and on "serious scientists". Your personally "knowing them" means exactly nothing as to the scientific validity of LENR.
"Your gibberish seems to imply Dave’s complicity is such activity — when anyone that knows him or his group at NRL — knows that they find this scholarship, well, not.
Good jumping to conclusions. Neither you nor I know why the NRL has "...essentially banned this type of research...". It could be turf wars between Navy labs, it could be an interagency decision to leave LENR to NASA. And it could be "anti-LENR" science politics. Your buddy "Dave" may not know what political decisions happened "above his pay grade".
Politics is like s**t, it happens. It happens in business, it happens in government agencies, it happens in academia, and is an unfortunate fact that has to be considered.
"As for the folks at SPAWAR item, good for them. If you want to hang your hat on that, go for it. Yeah! They have applied for a patent! You can dang near get a patent on anything if you know how to go about it. That’s not according to me, that is the consensus of the 10-15 patent examiners that I know, again personally, in Alexandria (where I lived for years).
Since I currently hold 26 patents (with a couple more still working through the system), I am "somewhat" aware of how the patent system works (or doesn't work). All I can do is read the patent and judge it according to my knowledge of the science involved....just as I have to do with any other technical information. And that is what I recommend that "you" do.
My POINT is simply wondering why the Navy would spend money applying for a patent in a time of tight budgets if there "...was no "there" there...".
BUT, the SPAWAR folks have also published MANY peer-reviewed papers on their work. I haven't by any means read all of them, but enough to know that they too are "serious scientists".
"So it has been fun blowing you up again.
Hah! All you've done is engage in cheap shots. That missed.
"Keynote speaker indeed! That’s like having Steve Jobs as the Keynote Speaker at a Microsoft Convention. Too funny.
Let's see. A conference on Cold Fusion invites a known anti-LENR researcher to give a major talk. To me, as a scientist, that speaks VERY well for the seriousness of the conference organizers at seeking the fundamental scientific truth of the subject, whatever it may be. You consider that to be a BAD thing????
"So this is an example of why some people think that you have a lack of credibility.
LOL. I don't claim to have any special credibility. All I've done is read the published works (not all, but certainly the key papers), and formed an opinion.
"You Sir, are not practicing science, you are cheerleading again and frankly insinuating specious claims more akin to a bus of 13 year old cheerleaders trying to talk over each other."
LOL. I'm talking about peer-reviewed papers, and you're talking about water-cooler discussions and telling "me" I'm "not practicing science"??
"Now I am off to sleep. I have an 8-figure proposal to review and approve tomorrow."
Enjoy your nap. Hopefully, someday, you will actually split off some nap time to read real research reports on the topic. But probably not, given your steadfast refusal to do so over the past many months. But "if" you ever do, Beaudette's book is still the best place to start.
And your management blather bores me....the size of your budget is irrelevant to the scientific validity or lack of same of LENR. Beaudette matches you in both science AND management "cred".
You are incorrect! I do know why NRL made this decision. See, that’s the difference in you and me. I am a scientific skeptic. You are a cheerleader. I’m not saying LENR will never amount to anything. In fact, it would be wonderful to see it do just that. But your continuous cheerleading and hyperventilating over questionable and very immature technology is detrimental to science. It is worse than the AGW crap spewed forth. In all honesty, there is real debate to be had. Unfortunately, cheerleading, hyperventilating and politics have proven poison to such debate. Then again, to many it is dogma. I suspect this is the case for you.
I repeat my earlier comment.....you, personally, have read the research reports from each side, and made a judgment? If all you have done is spoken to people around the water cooler, you know zip.
"See, that’s the difference in you and me. I am a scientific skeptic. You are a cheerleader.
Sorry, but no. A "scientific" skeptic would immediately hie off and read the peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Something you have steadfastly refused to do. Instead you choose to push the old "argument from authority" based on water cooler discussion.
I am neither skeptic nor cheerleader. I am judging entirely on what I READ in PUBLISHED reports.
"I’m not saying LENR will never amount to anything. In fact, it would be wonderful to see it do just that. But your continuous cheerleading and hyperventilating over questionable and very immature technology is detrimental to science.
I fail to see how pointing out published work and issued patents are "cheerleading". If anything, YOUR approach (water cooler chit-chat) is detrimental to science.
"It is worse than the AGW crap spewed forth. In all honesty, there is real debate to be had.
Sure, and I am quoting the sources needed for "real debate". Sources which you have steadfastly refused to check out.
"Unfortunately, cheerleading, hyperventilating and politics have proven poison to such debate.
Actually, most of the cheerleading (actually "anti" cheerleading), hyperventilating, and politics has come from those opposed to LENR and willing to do anything to impede it.
"Then again, to many it is dogma. I suspect this is the case for you."
Nope. I've read the papers. You haven't and refuse to. That, old boy, puts you into the category of "pathological skeptic".
I’ve read the papers. You haven’t and refuse to.
***Like Jamie on Mythbusters would say to Fuente, “that there is your problem”.
Let’s see. A conference on Cold Fusion invites a known anti-LENR researcher to give a major talk. To me, as a scientist, that speaks VERY well for the seriousness of the conference organizers at seeking the fundamental scientific truth of the subject, whatever it may be.
***Good point. But unfortunately, it is likely to go over the head of its intended recipient.
And your management blather bores me....the size of your budget is irrelevant to the scientific validity or lack of same of LENR. Beaudette matches you in both science AND management “cred”.
***Another good point. Fuente seems to think that because he sees these guys around the water cooler, their scientific opinion is good enough for him. That ain’t science.
Agreed. Apparently, asking LENR thread posters if they have read (or will read) the published data is a bullet-proof way to identify hard-core skeptopaths. It seems to work like garlic does with vampires.
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.