Zeus46
Member
1,271
Jul 28th 2017
#184
Quote from maryyugo
“Please give him the link Jed! Everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves...”
That is a pompous, inane and asinine remark
So... have you read those slides that you politely asked Dr Celani for yet?
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 28th 2017
#185
Quote from interested observer
1) If you don’t read it, you are worthless scum (unless you embrace it sight unseen.)
2) If you read it and criticize it, you are a crackpot.
3) If you accept it as the gospel according to Jed, you are golden.
1. If you do not read it, you have no business critiquing or discussing it. It is extremely unscientific to blather about experiments you know nothing about, and if you do not read, you do not know. That is clear from the confusion and the errors in messages here from people who have not read the literature.
2. If you read it and criticize it, join the club. There are thousands of papers and many of them are duds, as I have pointed out countless time.
3. No one could “accept” all of the literature because it is so contradictory. Much of it is wrong, as I said. This is normal for science at this stage in its development. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
2
The Real Roger Barker
Member
17
Jul 28th 2017
#186
Quote from maryyugo
That is a pompous, inane and asinine remark (note to admins: I am addressing the remark, not the person)
Mary, kindly leave such talk for other places.
axil
Verified User
1,717
Jul 28th 2017
#187
Quote from interested observer
Boy are LENR supporters adverse to defending their positions or even elucidating them. Ask any question and you are told to go read a bunch of papers. How about if you guys explain to us woefully ignorant people what you find so compelling in a paper and why it should be taken seriously. If you can’t do that, then your own belief is based on blind faith. And skip the BS about spoon feeding. That is just a bogus way to say “I can’t produce a cogent argument.”
However, if that is outside of the bounds of what should be going on here, then what is this website for? We have ECW where you can spend your time declaring the great victory that has already occurred for LENR and how it is going to be used in lawnmowers, helicopters and dishwashers starting next week. I thought this was a place for serious discussion, not cheerleading.
http://journals.plos.org/ploso…69895#pone.0169895.ref007
This is Holmlid’s newest peer reviewed paper on chemically induced nuclear reactions.
You can go through the paper and develop questions and If I can answer them then I will, but if I can’t then once we have formulated the question meticulously then we can ask Holmlid directly for clarification. I am excited to interact in the exploration of such an exciting subject.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#188
Louis Reed writes:
Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
JedRothwell wrote: That was a tally by Britz, not me. It was made in the mid to late 1980s.
What on earth are you talking about? You can’t tally replications before the experiment being replicated has been performed.
I was referring to a paper dated 2009, entitled “Tally of Cold Fusion Papers”, for which you (Jed Rothwell) are listed as the only author. Britz’s database is one of the sources, but so is your lenr-canr database. In that paper, there is a topic “Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases”, which is presumably a superset of refereed replications of P&F. The description says “The titles are culled from both [databases]”, so it was you doing the tallying, not Britz, even if you used his database. And the complete list of 153 papers is given in an appendix, and it includes a paper by Arata in 2008, so it clearly post-dates Storms’ table 2, published in 2004, which you claimed represents 180 “highly reputable university and government labs” that replicated P&F.
Furthermore, according to your own paper, the list of 153 refereed papers represents only 51 different affiliations, and not all of those are universities or government labs, since they include e.g. BlackLight Power, Toyota’s IMRA, and Swartz’s JET Energy.
Quote Not all of the 180 institutions published papers in the peer-reviewed literature.
Yes, that’s what I argued, and that’s what doesn’t make sense. A highly reputable university or government lab that claims replication of cold fusion would not be reputable if it didn’t publish.
Quote There were 180 institutions in Table 2. I counted them long ago.
You may have counted them, but I don’t believe you got to 180:
1. There are only about 180 entries, and Miles accounts for 9 of them, Zhang and Arata another 9, Eagleton and Bush for 7. There are at least 7 other authors (or author groups) with 5 or more entries, and 28 others with 2 to 5. Now some entries may represent more than one affiliation, but there is no way to make up for the multiple entries from many institutions. This is obvious when you consider the following...
2. All but about 45 of the authors listed in Storms table are accounted for in your list of principal authors responsible for the excess heat papers you tallied. The overlap is probably even stronger since Storms lists first author (and 2nd if there are only 2), and not necessarily principal author. And your list corresponds to 51 affiliations. So, that means the remaining 45 authors would have to account for 129 additional affiliations.
So, it’s clear from your own writing that 180 affiliations is not justifiable, let alone 180 highly reputable university and government institutions.
Such a cavalier misrepresentation of the contents of your own paper kind of destroys your credibility with respect to the rest of the cold fusion literature. Of course, in the Trump era, dishonesty seems to win a loyal following.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#189
Quote from Louis Reed
Instead, the number of groups actively investigating cold fusion now is a small fraction of 180, which means most of those labs have abandoned the field, many without publishing, and for a phenomenon with the importance of cold fusion, that is inconceivable unless the scientists came to realize the effect was not real.
Kevmo: No, the funding dried up and scientists moved on to other projects where they could get paid.
Funding from respectable sources (like DOE) dried up because the claims did not withstand scrutiny. The claims did not fail to persuade the world because funding dried up.
No, even the 2004 DOE review suggested further funding but everyone knew that wouldn’t happen due to the politics surrounding cold fusion.
Indeed, funding did not dry up. Storms estimates $500M has been spent on the field.
I favor funding something like $1 for every megajoule produced.
P&F got something like $50M from Toyota, about 500 times what they claimed was needed to make the claim in the first place. EPRI funded McKubre, and governments in India, Italy, and Japan continued to fund cold fusion for a long time.
Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck. -—————————————————————————— I need to update these figures. I realized I have been comparing OverUnity Apples to UnderUnity Oranges. Up until this week, Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF) experiments haven’t even broken overunity, let alone ignition. Nuclear fusion hits energy milestone http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-fusion-hits-energy-milestone-1.2534140 “The final reaction took place in a tiny “hot spot” about half the width of a human hair over about a ten thousandth of a millionth of a second. It released 17.3 kilojoules – almost double the amount absorbed by the fuel.” look again at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3KK joules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.0000000000000000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Kevin O’Malley wrote: It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of it. So I’m going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation into 1/2 the maximum. One half of 300MJ is 150MJ. One half of 6MJ is 3MJ. Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order of magnitude here or there. That doesn’t change the fact that LENR is 12 orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion. look at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.00000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Kevin O’Malley wrote: Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained periods. Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6 s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I am not sure. ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k. No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a few have generated 10 to 300 MJ. - Jed
Moreover, the incredible potential of cold fusion, were it real, has attracted private funding from the likes of Sidney Kimmel, and lately Bill Gates (allegedly), Larry Page, and Darden and co. The truth is, it is far easier to attract funds in cold fusion (or hydrinos) than in most fields considered legitimate in mainstream science. The likes of Godes, Dardik, and Rossi would have no chance with peer reviewed funding agencies, and all have attracted millions from private investment.
It is simply not the case. Almost all the cold fusion research has been privately funded, all the while the hot fusion guys have been fraudulently taking the lion’s share of research funds.
No, the statement stands: It is inconceivable that reputable institutes would abandon a field like cold fusion unless the scientists believed the likelihood that the phenomenon was real was vanishingly small.
It is utterly conceivable and it has happened. IF you look into cold fusion, your career will suffer.
I wrote: Surely, if this claim of 180 (or 90) reputable university labs having replicated cold fusion held water, there would have been no need for the formation of the MFMP whose first aim is to identify an experiment that can be replicated by university labs.
Most of the replications involved excess heat. It’s unfortunate that hot fusion guys had so little experience in calorimetry and electrochemistry but were so incredibly arrogant, but they managed to squash the research efforts, even when they had positive results that they unethically covered up.
So, I repeat, if 180 reputable institutes had replicated in a credible way, MFMP would be superfluous.
I have had my own frustrations with MFMP. They had Gamma rays 4 years ago and just blithely went off and did other things.
I don’t even know who the top 100 electrochemists are, but if you provide a list, and they all claim cold fusion is real, I’ll consider it.
That is Jed’s claim. I’m sure he’ll look at those 153 peer reviewed papers and point out that most of the top electrochemists are represented.
But you’re probably right. I base my evaluation of the field on the quality of the published claims, and they fail to persuade.
Sometimes I think maybe 20 of those 153 peer reviewed replications were wrong. That’s still more than a hundred replications. You wanna be persuaded? Call up MIT and ask why they fraudulently chose to hide their positive results.
But if I were to base my view of the field on authority, I would put more weight on the thousands of top nuclear physicists who are all but certain it’s bunk, than on 100 unnamed electrochemists.
As I posted above, cold fusion is 25 orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion. Hot fusion guys don’t regularly do electrolysis, but electrochemists do.
Display Less
1
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#191
Quote from kirkshanahan
Kev wrote: “Call up MIT and ask why they fraudulently chose to hide their positive results.”
They didn’t. (Please don’t bring up the 1999 Infinite Energy - Gene Mallove report on this. ....
That was a case of fraud, which some of the people around here as so acutely attuned to. Naturally when the fraud comes from the skeptopaths, suddenly the requirements for proving fraud are sky high.
Yes, in LENR, the only time we’ve seen a verified fraud was from MIT when they fraudulently changed their results that were actually positive. A report by Dr. Eugene Mallove explains how MIT falsified tests of Pons and Fleishmann back in 1989 in order to squash cold fusion. They wanted to maintain their lucrative hot fusion research grants. This fraud by MIT is partly responsible for setting back cold fusion research over the past 25 years.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#193
Quote from kirkshanahan
You really can’t read can you Kev. I ask you to not bring up the Mallove report because ...
You can’t read either, can you? It was proven that MIT lied about their positive results but you keep coming back for more and more, crackpot that you are. There’s a difference between not being able to read and choosing not to answer a crackpot on his own terms.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 10th 2017
#194
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
That was a tally by Britz, not me. It was made in the mid to late 1980s.
What on earth are you talking about? You can’t tally replications before the experiment being replicated has been performed.
Obviously, I meant to write “late 1990s.” Please do pretend you have found a significant error when anyone can see it was typo. Surely you do not think I believe in time travel.
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
In that paper, there is a topic “Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases”, which is presumably a superset of refereed replications of P&F. The description says “The titles are culled from both [databases]”, so it was you doing the tallying, not Britz,
Good catch. It was from both.
I counted 180 institutions somewhere. Probably my own database, since it is easier to count things with an EndNote file than by hand.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#197
Quote from kirkshanahan
, I prepared a detailed response based on the referenced document (http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf ).
....
Reading the document, it is clear Mallove has an axe to grind, and he tries to use the data manipulation to put a sharp edge on his beliefs. Unfortunately, it really just dulls it.
So what we have in this forum is Kevin spouting standard CF propaganda without the ability to defend his position, and then immediately descending into ad hominem attack. Typical true believer behavior.
Display Less
Uhh, what we have here is that you posted your rebuttal and Mallove is dead
On April 20, 2012, the Norwich Bulletin stated that: “An ongoingmurder trial came to an abrupt halt Friday when Chad Schaffer, of Norwich, decided to accept an offer of 16 years in prison, pleading guilty to the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter in the 2004 beating death of Eugene Mallove.”
Eugene Mallove - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove
so he can no longer answer your nonsense. But it’s good to know where you posted your stuff so that anyone interested in what you have to say can go over there and be fascinated by it.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#198
Quote from maryyugo
That’a way to avoid answering the question... so once more... no verified fraud hey? So again, what did you think of Defkalion?
https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/
No, it’s a way of expressing that I suspect your post is probably going to be moved to the junkyard thread. If you want me to answer and have confidence it will stay up, you can post it on the Cold Fusion DISQUS site.
https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#199
Quote from JedRothwell
I counted 180 institutions somewhere. Probably my own database, since it is easier to count things with an EndNote file than by hand.
Actually, it was Louis Reed who wrote that. He seems to be whittling down your 180 institutions number, and I’d like to know what that gets whittled down to. He did a similar thing to the 153 peer reviewed replications number. I just want to know what an ordinary scientest would accept as the number of peer reviewed replications and how many labs...
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 11th 2017
#200
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
I just want to know what an ordinary scientest would accept as the number of peer reviewed replications and how many labs...
What does it matter? If this were treated rationally, like any other experiment, five replications at places like Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC would convince everyone. There would be no argument. Debating whether it has been replicated at 180 labs or only 90 is absurd. Either number is far greater than any rational scientist would demand for proof. It is like arguing whether you should spend $100 million repairing your Toyota Corolla transmission, or only $52 million.
Member
846
Aug 11th 2017
#201
Quote from JedRothwell
What does it matter? If this were treated rationally, like any other experiment, five replications at places like Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC would convince everyone. There would be no argument. Debating whether it has been replicated at 180 labs or only 90 is absurd. Either number is far greater than any rational scientist would demand for proof. It is like arguing whether you should spend $100 million repairing your Toyota Corolla transmission, or only $52 million.
I agree, but when I go on elsewhere and quote 53 peer reviewed replications, 180 labs, 14,700 replication experiments I want it to be a relatively hardened figure. Yes I know it means repairing the Toyota for $52M but if you settle on $52M and reasonable skeptics settle on $52M then I don’t have to go through this again and again. This is my third time trying to get at a secure number.
Member
846
Aug 11th 2017
#204
Quote from THHuxleynew
keV @mods
As one example of behavior that is troll-like I note this argument. It is a rhetorical device with no information content (other than the death of Mallove) and no relevance to the issue. To see its absurdity pick any dead physicist holding ideas now considered wrong - or equally a dead devil-worshipper holding objectionable ideas now thought to be wrong. Holding to this argument, all these people would equally deserve to be believed because they have no ability to reply, and ones belief system must therefore be hopelessly overloaded.
That’s troll like, but arguing against the “who’s who of electrochemistry” in their replications is not considered troll like? Alice has truly stepped through the looking glass.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 11th 2017
#209
Quote from maryyugo
Are we at the “appeal to authority” fallacy yet, Jed?
Nope. Not as long as the people we are talking about really are experts in a discipline relevant to the problem. If you cite experts in plasma physics and say that their cold fusion experiments prove the effect does not exist, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority, because they do not know how to do electrochemistry, as you see from their papers. Or, if you were to cite the opinions of electrochemists regarding the ITER project, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
It is not complicated. Is the person you cite a recognized authority in a field relevant to the discussion? In cold fusion that would be an expert in electrochemistry, calorimetry, tritium or helium detection, for example. If so, you have not made a logical fallacy.
Arguing against the who’s who of electrochemistry is as troll-like as a troll can be. To take some similar hot-button examples, it is like claiming that climatologists have no business expressing opinions on global warming, or doctors know nothing about obesity and we should defer to the latest fad diet advocate instead.
3
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 11th 2017
#210
Quote from JedRothwell
Or, if you were to cite the opinions of electrochemists regarding the ITER project, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
That is not to suggest electrochemists should express no opinions about ITER. It just means their opinions are not privileged. Electrochemists do not deserve extra respect or deference when it comes to ITER. They may deserve somewhat more respect than, say, people who have no scientific or engineering background. But I don’t suppose they know more about ITER than biologists, civil engineers, or semiconductor experts.
Of course all arguments must be considered on their own merits. But, if you are not an expert, and you have difficulty understanding a technical subject, I think you should defer to experts until you have a good reason to think they are mistaken. For example, it it is clear that Mary Yugo does not understand the boil-off calorimetry in this paper by Fleischmann:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
Fleischmann did understand this, in great detail, and he was an expert in calorimetry. So, it would not be a fallacious appeal for Yugo to say, “even though I personally don’t understand this, I am going to assume it is correct because Fleischmann was an expert in this field, and there are no published papers by other experts citing errors in this work.”
Of course, Yugo would never say that. On the contrary, the gist of her argument is often: “anything I do not understand or I have not bothered to read must be wrong.” That is kind of a reverse appeal to authority. It is an appeal to ignorance. It is saying that people who know nothing and who cannot be bothered to learn anything are inherently more believable than world-class experts and Fellows of the Royal Society.
1
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#211
Quote from kirkshanahan
Listing a “who’s who” *without* judging the quality and relevance of their relevant work is the logical tactic known as ‘call to authority’.
When it’s the top hundred or so experts in some particular field, it is not a logical fallacy to rely on their authority, because they have some authority in their field.
Now, if it were the top 100 experts in a field saying that it’s bogus IN THEIR FIELD, that’s different. The situation we had was a few experts in nuclear hot fusion who were dependent upon guvmint grants for their living, they were saying that those top hundred experts in the OTHER FIELD had got it wrong. It is not a stretch to suggest that people who regularly use electrochemistry and calorimetry in their line of work have more authority than people who rarely if EVER use calorimetry in their line of work.
2
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#212
Quote from maryyugo
It was essentially rhetorical, Kev. In point of fact, based on your unpleasant style and your previous writing, I don’t give a _ _ _ _ what you think.
Of course not. Arguing points of view and supporting one’s views is what forums should be about. Are we at the “appeal to authority” fallacy yet, Jed?
In point of fact, you are one of the most unpleasant trolls on the internet, you’ve been banned from Vortex and probably other sites so I don’t care what you think for the most part. But you serve as a good pasquinade. And sure enough, you jump right over the line of rationality in your next sentence where your own supposed authority is lined up against the top hundred experts in electrochemistry. You are not among those top hundred experts in electrochemistry, even if you know a thing or two about calorimetry, but your stuff doesn’t even come remotely close. Go on and keep arguing that irrational point of view, it works for me.
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#213
Quote from JedRothwell
Gee, golly, gosh. Again and again, is it? Well, you could try doing it yourself. What’s stopping you? Most of the data is at LENR-CANR.org and in Ed’s book. You should read the book if you are seriously interested in this subject. If you are so anxious to pin down the number, do your own homework.
It is almost as if you expect me to spoon feed you the information.
I myself find this whole discussion silly, and inconsequential. Once the number of replications exceeds 5 or 10, it makes no difference how many there are. 90, 180, or 20,000 would be the same. I wrote the Tally paper at the request of a researcher. I do not know why he wanted the information, but it wasn’t hard for me to assemble the report using my EndNote relational database, so I did it. It is not important.
I have read Ed’s book, etc. So calm down. I don’t expect you to spoonfeed me. You wrote the tally and it got untied by a skeptopath so I would like to know your response. Where does the rational line get drawn? You say it makes no difference, but it does... to a skeptopath. If we ever get a skeptopath to accept that there are dozens of replications, that is a rational line drawn. I have seen it done before, and the skeptopath went back into hiding as a result.
You fed us the information, so now that skeptopaths are refusing to eat I would like to know where that line gets drawn for true and rational skeptics. For me personally, I have read enough papers to know that this effect has been replicated far more than 153 times. But I’m no authority on this subject. Your tally of peer reviewed replications is the closest thing we have to an authority on the subject. Asking you for your response when someone questions your tally isn’t even remotely asking to be spoonfed. Maybe you should add some more bran to your diet.
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#214
Quote from JedRothwell
Arguing against the who’s who of electrochemistry is as troll-like as a troll can be.
I suppose now it’s time for the supposed experts on this particular forum to weigh in on whether or not this is as troll-like as a troll can be — those supposed experts would be the moderators on this forum. My prediction is the sound of crickets or maybe a post about me saying they’re not at my beck and call, something like that, but not directly addressing the issue at hand.
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 12th 2017
#216
The real problem with appeal to authority arguments is that people only listen to authorities that hold the position they are arguing for. Conveniently, equally qualified authorities who hold opposing views are either ignored or disqualified as being biased or tools of some evil conspiracy. So are “100 top electrochemists” the list from Forbes Hottest Electrochemists of the Year or are they a cherry-picked set out of the 8,000 members of the Electrochemical Society?
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 12th 2017
#217
Quote from interested observer
So are “100 top electrochemists” the list from Forbes Hottest Electrochemists of the Year or are they a cherry-picked set out of the 8,000 members of the Electrochemical Society?
You can read some of their bios and decide for yourself. They were people such as Bockris who wrote the most widely used textbook; Fleischmann, FRS and president of the Electrochem. Society; Yeager, who they named the institute for (http://chemistry.case.edu/research/yces/); Arata, who has an international prize and a building on the campus at a National U. named after him; the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; a Fellow of China Lake; the main designer of India’s atomic bomb; a top commissioner on the French AEC; the person who designed the tritium labs at Los Alamos and the PPPL; etc.
Looking at it the other way, the number of leading electrochemists who were not able to replicate is: one (1). Lewis. However, in my opinion, and in the opinion of Fleischmann and others, he did replicate, but his analysis was flawed. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
3
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#218
Quote from interested observer
The real problem with appeal to authority arguments is that people only listen to authorities that hold the position they are arguing for. Conveniently, equally qualified authorities who hold opposing views are either ignored or disqualified as being biased or tools of some evil conspiracy.
Do you have any examples of this taking place in some other area? I’m thinking of economics, but the models are so flawed that the inexactitude lends itself to warring “experts”. A similar thing is taking place with Anthropomorphic Global Warming. So is there an example of a bunch of appealing to authority in some area where the data is nailed down? We saw some of it in tobacco, where there were paid tobacco scientists holding to the party line.
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 12th 2017
#219
There is the old saying that an expert is someone with credentials who says what you want to hear. This sort of thing is pretty ubiquitous.
The examples of AGW denial and tobacco industry doubt spreaders are classic cases where the science is settled but a fringe group is trying to assert that the science is not settled on the basis that the majority is corrupt, is using faulty data, or is part of some agenda-driven conspiracy. So they trot out some experts who hold the view they want to hear and work hard to marginalize everyone else.
The LENR world has some interesting parallels. The way I see it, the science is not settled, but a fringe group is trying to assert that it is on the basis that the majority is corrupt, part of some agenda-driven conspiracy, or simply has no opinion at all. By limiting the sample to only those they deem qualified to hold an opinion, they declare victory.
I don’t know if CF/LENR is a real thing or not. I do know that it is not settled science. Settled science is when the preponderance of experts in a field accept a common view. This has not happened with LENR. Sure, you can try to declare that the opinions of anyone except researchers who have gotten positive results do not count, but that is bogus.
1
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Aug 12th 2017
#220
Quote from JedRothwell
Gee, golly, gosh. Again and again, is it? Well, you could try doing it yourself. What’s stopping you? Most of the data is at LENR-CANR.org and in Ed’s book. You should read the book if you are seriously interested in this subject. If you are so anxious to pin down the number, do your own homework.
It is almost as if you expect me to spoon feed you the information.
I myself find this whole discussion silly, and inconsequential. Once the number of replications exceeds 5 or 10, it makes no difference how many there are. 90, 180, or 20,000 would be the same. I wrote the Tally paper at the request of a researcher. I do not know why he wanted the information, but it wasn’t hard for me to assemble the report using my EndNote relational database, so I did it. It is not important.
The issue is not the number of replications. 2 or 3 would be enough if they has strong data and methodology, and were true replications.
It is what do these broadly similar experiments with broadly similar results represent.
Some sophistication is needed, because of the issues of experiment selection, experiment type selection, and possible systematic errors duplicated by those getting positive results (many attempted replications showed negative results, so this is very possible).
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 12th 2017
#221
Quote from THHuxleynew
The issue is not the number of replications. 2 or 3 would be enough if they has strong data and methodology, and were true replications.
There are dozens that fit that description, all of them with the original technique of electrochemistry and Pd-D. Cathodes in different labs showed the same ratio of loading to heat (McKubre and Kunimatsu). When cathodes have been shared from one lab to another, in some cases they have produced exactly the same level of heat. The same loading level versus heat, and current density versus heat, has been observed in many labs. See Figs. 1 through 3:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
Tritium has been observed in over 100 labs.
In short, the data shows what you demand, but you refuse to look.
Quote from THHuxleynew
many attempted replications showed negative results
Not only do you refuse to look, but you make up stuff like that. I’ll bet you cannot list more than 10 replications done by electrochemists which showed negative results. There is a long list of “replications” by non-electrochemists which failed for well understood reasons, such as confusing the anode and cathode.
When you refuse to look at the data and you wave your hands and invent “facts” like this, you can prove anything.
4
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#222
Quote from interested observer
There is the old saying that an expert is someone with credentials who says what you want to hear. This sort of thing is pretty ubiquitous.
The examples of AGW denial and tobacco industry doubt spreaders are classic cases where the science is settled but a fringe group is trying to assert that the science is not settled on the basis that the majority is corrupt, is using faulty data, or is part of some agenda-driven conspiracy. So they trot out some experts who hold the view they want to hear and work hard to marginalize everyone else.
The LENR world has some interesting parallels. The way I see it, the science is not settled, but a fringe group is trying to assert that it is on the basis that the majority is corrupt, part of some agenda-driven conspiracy, or simply has no opinion at all. By limiting the sample to only those they deem qualified to hold an opinion, they declare victory.
I don’t know if CF/LENR is a real thing or not. I do know that it is not settled science. Settled science is when the preponderance of experts in a field accept a common view. This has not happened with LENR. Sure, you can try to declare that the opinions of anyone except researchers who have gotten positive results do not count, but that is bogus.
Display Less
When did the Wright brothers become “settled science”? When they were making their practice runs and the vast majority of the world considered them crackpots or scam artists? Or when they demo’d their capabilities in 1908? Was it when the journal “Scientific American” refused to publish their results because it was impossible or the journal “Gleenings in Beekeeping” that accurately recorded their flight? Or perhaps the 1903 newspaper account that said their plane had 6 wings and carried 4 people & had 2 engines? The simple fact is that they were flying for 5 years before it was considered “settled science” and LENR will have been considered replicated in 1990 once it breaks out.
1
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Aug 12th 2017
#223
Quote from JedRothwell
There are dozens that fit that description, all of them with the original technique of electrochemistry and Pd-D. Cathodes in different labs showed the same ratio of loading to heat (McKubre and Kunimatsu). When cathodes have been shared from one lab to another, in some cases they have produced exactly the same level of heat. The same loading level versus heat, and current density versus heat, has been observed in many labs. See Figs. 1 through 3:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
Tritium has been observed in over 100 labs.
In short, the data shows what you demand, but you refuse to look.
Not only do you refuse to look, but you make up stuff like that. I’ll bet you cannot list more than 10 replications done by electrochemists which showed negative results. There is a long list of “replications” by non-electrochemists which failed for well understood reasons, such as confusing the anode and cathode.
When you refuse to look at the data and you wave your hands and invent “facts” like this, you can prove anything.
Display Less
The trouble for me is that looking at even one paper takes me quite a long time. I’ve been looking at McKubre’s low loss mass flow experiments - many of which were negative. These seem (to me) to be some of the more high quality replications.
When you make breezy comments as above it is important to realise that with so many replications almost any correlation you like can be found by cherry-picking. If you could take all replications and look systematically at success versus anything it would be interesting. For example: Figure 1 in http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf.
You might suppose that proves your point. It does nothing of the kind because it would need to be plotting number of successes versus number of distinct attempts for each of these loading ratios for the results to be meaningful.
Which is why it takes me a long time to read stuff, and why summaries like Mckubre’s are not helpful unless you read them carefully and with an eye to the underlying science.
1
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Aug 12th 2017
#224
Just to reiterate a point that was made above — the number of replications is perhaps not of more than sociological interest. A handful of solid replications are all that is needed to establish that there’s something of interest (whatever it is). From the standpoint of science I’m going to guess that it’s sociology or perhaps boosterism rather than electrochemistry and related fields that dictates the need to have a lot of replications, or a certain ratio of successful replications to replication attempts.
Norman Ramsey wrote in the preamble to a 1998 draft report of the DoD Cold Fusion Panel:
Quote from Norman Ramsey
Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual In that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons. Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. Consequently, with the many contradictory existing claims it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved. Nonetheless, on balance, the Panel has reached the following conclusions and recommendations. [Emphasis mine.]
I believe something like this also ended up in the final report. As I recall, Ramsey threatened to resign from the panel if this preamble was not added.
What constitutes a short but valid cold fusion period? That is where the trouble starts. Many outside observers don’t necessarily find existing reports credible. Jed would argue that the bar has been more than passed by well-qualified scientists using normal, tried-and-true methods. Even Kirk agrees that something unusual is going on, while disagreeing on the interpretation. Here a related but not identical scientific need to having a lot of replications is to have a recipe that will allow professionals to replicate for themselves whatever effect is being reported within their own labs, so that they can rule out competing hypotheses for themselves. Having such a recipe would probably lead to a lot of replications. There have been claims of such a recipe, although I’m doubtful that one that is straightforward to use has been fully disclosed yet.
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#226
Quote from interested observer
Drawing parallels between the Wright brothers and LENR is rather absurd. Challenges to LENR results tend to be based on analysis methodology, instrumentation, accuracy of measurements, and various other elements of the data. Merely looking at an LENR reactor tells you nothing except that some sort of apparatus exists regardless of its function. Does anyone seriously contend that an eyewitness of a Wright brothers flight did not have all the information needed to confidently state “those guys were flying?” At the start of the 20th century, people denied the facts about flight because they only had hearsay to go on. There was no live TV. On the other hand, Rossi fans only have hearsay to go on to think e-cats work, and the worst sort of hearsay at that.
So go find a better way to make your case for the Italian charlatan. False analogies are lame.
No, the challenges to LENR started from a deep need to protect the funding of Hot Fusion projects and then reinforced by skeptopathic emotional needs. That’s pretty lame to criticize the results of LENR by saying you can’t determine anything by “merely looking” at it. Heat is heat, you can feel it. If you can’t tell us where the heat comes from chemically, it is a scientific feat worth pursuing. When you develop the capability to feel the heat through the TV then you yourself will get a Nobel prize.
Online
AlainCo
Tech-watcher, admin
3,155
Aug 12th 2017
#228
about denial consensus the best example if about Germs.
The denial of the work of Oliver de Aberdeen, then brilliant statistics by Semmelweiss, and the huge attacks finally vanquished by “commercial methods” (demo thak kids can understand, demo on innocents kids) by Pasteur, is a century wide denial of evident facts.
moreover it seems that at that time people were less dogmatic than today.
I see that by the theory fallacy (if it does not agree with theory, the experiment must be wrong).
it is hard to imagine today how openmind were the scientists of 19th and early 20th century.
“Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 13th 2017
#229
Perhaps the longer that science exists, the more that people assume it explains everything?
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 13th 2017
#230
keV: heat is heat alright, and nobody denies that LENR reactors get hot when you put current through them. The question is how much heat? The whole business is predicated on “excess heat”, not just any heat at all. And the disputes are all about whether there is indeed more heat than can be accounted for conventionally. That is as far from being able to tell “just by looking at it” as anything can be. Why must you LENR fans use such utterly specious arguments? And spare me the crap about skeptopathic emotional needs. Just more empty ad hominen blather from somebody arguing from false premises.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#231
Quote from THHuxleynew
The trouble for me is that looking at even one paper takes me quite a long time.
Why is that a problem? Or why is it my problem? If you don’t want to do your homework you should believe what I say or drop the subject.
Quote from THHuxleynew
I’ve been looking at McKubre’s low loss mass flow experiments - many of which were negative.
The success ratio is irrelevant. In the mid-1950s, for some types of transistors, 80% or 90% of the devices in a production run failed. That is a worse success rate than any cold fusion experiment, but no one claimed that transistors did not exist. The success rate for early cloning experiments was 1 in 1000 but no one claimed the resulting sheep were not clones. The Vanguard series of rockets in the late 1950s had more explosions than successful launches, but no one claimed that rockets do not exist.
Quote from THHuxleynew
You might suppose that proves your point. It does nothing of the kind because it would need to be plotting number of successes versus number of distinct attempts for each of these loading ratios for the results to be meaningful.
Nope. It doesn’t work that way. In any case, all of the data from McKubre and others is shown in the loading ratio graphs, including experiments that did not produce heat. There is no cherry-picking.
When experiments do not produce heat, the problem is usually clear. That does not mean you can fix the problem, but you see what it is. It is usually fractured palladium, with cracks. It does not hold up to high loading.
2
Member
846
Aug 13th 2017
#232
Quote from kirkshanahan
keV
At this point in history, any list of who’s who in an field you choose to define is composed of human beings (with the minor possibility of defining a field only populated by current and former AI programs - which is not relevant here because I doubt we would call them ‘experts’ of AI, their human creators are the experts). Human beings make mistakes. Irregardless of their level of expertise. Thus, what they communicate must be considered to potentially contain errors. Thus, what they communicate must be analyzed. Calling upon what ‘authorities’ of a field say without analyzing them is guaranteed to lead one to error, since the authorities’ errors will never be noted.
Your list of who’s who in electrochemistry is worthless unless you are trying to assign prizes or awards. Science requires them to be questioned just like anyone else, and if found in error, to be corrected.
You might want to read https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439192375/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Display Less
Those hundred electrochemists are experts in electrochemistry. They were challenged by physicists who were NOT experts in electrochemistry. The chances of error from nonexperts engaging in a field are FAR higher than for experts engaging in that field where they are experts. There’s a huge duhh factor here.
Member
846
Aug 13th 2017
#233
Quote from AlainCo
about denial consensus the best example if about Germs.
The denial of the work of Oliver de Aberdeen, then brilliant statistics by Semmelweiss, and the huge attacks finally vanquished by “commercial methods” (demo thak kids can understand, demo on innocents kids) by Pasteur, is a century wide denial of evident facts.
moreover it seems that at that time people were less dogmatic than today.
I see that by the theory fallacy (if it does not agree with theory, the experiment must be wrong).
it is hard to imagine today how openmind were the scientists of 19th and early 20th century.
Display More
That’s a good example. Plate Tectonic theory was another... the world simply had to wait for that generation of scientists to die off. As Planck noted, science progresses one funeral at a time.
1
Member
846
Aug 13th 2017
#234
Quote from interested observer
keV: heat is heat alright, and nobody denies that LENR reactors get hot when you put current through them. The question is how much heat? The whole business is predicated on “excess heat”, not just any heat at all. And the disputes are all about whether there is indeed more heat than can be accounted for conventionally. That is as far from being able to tell “just by looking at it” as anything can be. Why must you LENR fans use such utterly specious arguments? And spare me the crap about skeptopathic emotional needs. Just more empty ad hominen blather from somebody arguing from false premises.
Why must you skeptopaths always resort to calling everything an ad hominem attack? I didn’t attack the person, I attacked the whole group engaging in skeptopathy. We all agree if there is “more heat than can be accounted for conventionally” then it is worth pursuing. What we don’t agree on is that physicists don’t know much about calorimetry because they almost never use it in conventional physics, whereas electrochemists use it all the time so they are far more competent in that aspect of the field. So why is it the skeptopaths use such utterly specious arguments? Because it is obvious that the conclusion leads a normal skeptical person to realize that excess heat has been replicated, dozens and dozens of times. Just like what happened with the Wright brothers, germ theory, plate tectonics, the skeptopaths slithered back into their holes. Eventually that’s what will happen with LENR and it will seem utterly obvious to people reading this a hundred years from now. But what is the utterly obvious thing that can be said to make a skeptopath realize his error? No doubt future historians will say something like “well, duhh, if you’d only have mentioned such & such...” But LENR advocates have already tried everything. Nothing works to bring skeptopaths back into reality.
1
Member
846
Aug 13th 2017
#235
Quote from JedRothwell
The success rate for early cloning experiments was 1 in 1000 but no one claimed the resulting sheep were not clones.
I thought Dolly the Sheep was a result of 100,000 attempts.
Another example was Thomas Edison with his 10,000 attempts before he landed the right recipe for the electric lightbulb.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#236
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
Another example was Thomas Edison with his 10,000 attempts before he landed the right recipe for the electric lightbulb.
I am pretty sure he was exaggerating! But he was doing what is now called “Edisonian” trial and error. He later hired scientifically trained young people who were somewhat appalled at his techniques. Tesla also criticized him for not applying enough theory. See the book: “A Streak of Luck.”
Edison knew way more chemistry and applied physics than he let on.
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 13th 2017
#237
So is anyone who does not think LENR is proven science a pathological skeptic? If your answer to this question is yes, then you are a pathological believer. Them’s the facts folks.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#238
Quote from interested observer
Does anyone seriously contend that an eyewitness of a Wright brothers flight did not have all the information needed to confidently state “those guys were flying?”
After late summer of 1904 witnesses had all the information they needed. Before that, the Wrights made about 80 attempts to fly, but they barely got off the ground in most cases, and often crashed immediately. They called members of the press one day, but the motor failed to operate. In September 1904, they added a launch derrick and improved the airplane design. The weather cooled down, making air density higher. At that point they managed to go high enough and stay in the air long enough to show observers they could actually fly. As I recall, it was 1905 when they gathered dozens of affidavits from leading citizens testifying that these citizens had seen them fly. They took numerous photos of airplanes in flight. So, if the Scientific American had bothered to send a reporter, they would have seen abundant proof that the claim was true. But they didn’t bother. They denounced the Wrights instead, and they kept denouncing them, most recently in 1993 and 2003.
Before September 1904, it would have taken an expert to know they were flying and not just being lobbed through the air in an uncontrolled hop. I say that because Wilbur Wright said that, and he described that in detail in his diary, in lectures and engineering papers starting in 1901. Many people before the Wrights got into the air with propeller driven airplanes with fixed wings. But none of them flew in the exact technical sense that the Wrights described. So it was not quite as clear as you describe.
In all of 1904 they made 104 “flights or flight attempts.” Most of them failed, as I said. By the standards of THH and others skeptics here, we should conclude from this that airplanes did not exist in 1904 and the Wrights did not know how to fly. Failures far outnumbered successes, and they were only cherry picking a few successful flights. That makes no sense. As I said, that is like saying that because it took thousands of attempts to clone one sheep, Dolly the clone did not exist.
http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/1904.html
Here is Wilbur’s 1901 lecture to the Western Society of Engineers. This is the first rigorous engineering description of flight, as distinguished from an uncontrolled hop through the air.
http://invention.psychology.ms…library/Aeronautical.html
See:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf
Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect. It is no less convincing than the photos of airplanes flying over Huffman Prairie in 1905.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#239
Quote from interested observer
So is anyone who does not think LENR is proven science a pathological skeptic?
No, there are many other reasons why a person would not think LENR is proven science. For example:
People with no general knowledge of science, such as most reporters or politicians, will have no way of judging the issue. You can’t blame them, any more than you can blame me for not appreciating Italian Opera, given than I am practically tone deaf.
A person who has not read the experimental literature carefully, or not read enough of it.
A person such as Mary Yugo who does not understand the literature well enough to evaluate it. Many scientists in other fields make stupid mistakes when trying to evaluate cold fusion, as you see in the 2004 DoE review panel’s remarks. I suppose that if you were to ask electrochemists to review a Tokamak experiment, they would also make stupid mistakes.
People who have no idea there is experimental literature. We know this is the problem because when it is resolved, the problem often goes away. Many skilled scientists who have no knowledge of the subject find out about it, read the literature, and are quickly convinced. So they tell me. That is why 4 million papers have been downloaded from LENR-CANR.org. Scientists would not download that many papers if they did not believe it. Only scientists can make head or tail of most of those papers, as I showed here on p. 6:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf
People who try to learn about cold fusion by reading Wikipedia or the Scientific American instead of reading the literature will fail. I wouldn’t call that being a pathological skeptic, but there is no valid information about cold fusion in these sources, so you cannot learn anything from them. You will get the impression it is wrong.
I would not classify the authors at Wikipedia or the Scientific American as pathological scientists. I have had extensive exchanges with them. I am quite familiar with their views and their knowledge. They know nothing about cold fusion. They have read nothing. They do not know what instruments have been used, what has been observed, or what conclusions drawn from this. Their views come from an echo chamber of overblown imagination, fantasy and nonsense. If I believed this nonsense, I too would be convinced that cold fusion does not exist. I am sure there are many subjects about which I am severely misinformed, but I don’t know this because I have never bothered to learn much about them. I took for granted what I read in the newspapers or Scientific American, which in these cases is bosh. (The world is awash in bosh. Centuries from now, people will look back on us and say we were only a little more educated than people were in 1600.) But here is the thing: I would never write an article in the Sci. Am. or on Wikipedia about a subject I have not carefully studied. I would not plunge into Wikipedia and delete statements by people I violently disagree with about a subject I know practically nothing about. That is pathological. Being ignorant is not.
There are a small number people who actually know about the subject, and who realize it is real, but who make statements as if they were pathological skeptics. I mean, for example, the scientists who attacked it in public while sending detailed applications for funding to EPRI and other organizations to perform cold fusion experiments. Their applications revealed that they understood the topic. They were lying in public. I guess they did that to undercut the competition and grab funding.
Finally, there are some pathological skeptics. This is true of any field of science.
3
Member
846
Aug 13th 2017
#240
Quote from interested observer
So is anyone who does not think LENR is proven science a pathological skeptic? If your answer to this question is yes, then you are a pathological believer. Them’s the facts folks.
The trick is to resolve the impasse with scientific reasoning, like say with the replication results of the top hundred electrochemists of their day and to discount those who don’t regularly use calorimetry in their day to day scientific pursuits, like say the hot fusion physicists. One group is a fish in water and the other group is a fish out of water.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 13th 2017
#241
Quote from JedRothwell
Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect. It is no less convincing than the photos of airplanes flying over Huffman Prairie in 1905.
One of the datapoints is the “NO’s”.
The hot fusion skeptopaths said that Pons-Fleischmann could have failed to mix the water properly in their cells. So P-F showed a cell giving off excess heat, put in some dye and it rapidly colored the water throughout the cell, proving that they had been mixing the water properly. Did the skeptopaths withdraw their criticism? NO.
McKubre published a paper showing that most of the negative result findings occurred with a loading less than 0.80... Did the skeptopaths go back and run their experiments with loadings of 0.95 or above? NO.
Edited once, last by kevmolenr@gmail.com: typos (Aug 13th 2017).
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 13th 2017
#242
Ok, Jed is the closest thing to a rational respndant to my questions regarding the status of LENR science. Condensing his response, he says that cold fusion is settled science because anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge who studies the literature must conclude that it is real. Therefore, anyone who does not conclude it is real either is unqualified to make that judgement, hasn’t read enough papers, or is a liar. Of course, what is particularly ironic about this is that the majority of LENR fans have little or no scientific knowledge and are most certainly unqualified to assess the literature regardless of how well it is written. But their opinions are golden.
Anyway, if one applies Jed’s filters to the world, one can conclude that cold fusion is settled science. With a little care, one can make sure to disqualify any and all dissenting opinion and declare unanimity. I believe this is how elections work in North Korea, by the way.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#243
Quote from interested observer
Condensing his response, he says that cold fusion is settled science because anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge who studies the literature must conclude that it is real.
There are no published papers that support your views. There are no papers in the peer-reviewed literature or proceedings showing significant errors in any mainstream cold fusion experiments. (Other than Shanahan’s and Morrison’s I mean — and I already listed them, several times.).
You are talking in generalities only. In experimental science, you have to point to specifics. If the experiments by McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann are wrong, you have to say why they are wrong. Waving your hands and saying “there might be an error” is not valid, because that cannot be tested or falsified. A negative evaluation has to be supported with as much rigor and as many facts as a positive one. You have no facts. You cannot cite any specific errors. No skeptic has published an evaluation of any experiment showing errors. They lose by default.
Quote from interested observer
Of course, what is particularly ironic about this is that the majority of LENR fans have little or no scientific knowledge and are most certainly unqualified to assess the literature regardless of how well it is written. But their opinions are golden.
Science is not a popularity contest. The views of the “majority of LENR fans” has no bearing on this discussion. No one should evaluate the science by counting how many people line up on either side, or by asking how much the people in each group know. You have to look at the actual papers. Not imaginary descriptions of them in Wikipedia — the actual papers. You have to examine the instruments and methodology and determine what they show with reference to textbook laws such as thermodynamics. That is the only basis for you to judge what these experiments indicate, and what conclusions to draw. As I said, there is not a single paper out there showing errors or reasons to doubt the conclusions except Shanahan and Morrison. I suggest you read those two and reach your own conclusions. Ask Shahanhan for his best evidence. Morrison is here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
2
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Aug 13th 2017
#244
Note as well that Kirk is in agreement with the CF researchers that there is an experimental anomaly, rather than there being none at all and only methodological error. In his specific case it is the interpretation of the data on which he disagrees. But that sets him apart from anyone claiming that CF researchers are simply picking up false signals through inadequate controls, as one example, or cherry-picking false positives. Kirk assumes a genuine CF-like signal is there. If more people took even his view, they would look more closely at the CF literature.
2
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Aug 13th 2017
#245
Quote from Eric Walker
What constitutes a short but valid cold fusion period? That is where the trouble starts. Many outside observers don’t necessarily find existing reports credible. Jed would argue that the bar has been more than passed by well-qualified scientists using normal, tried-and-true methods. Even Kirk agrees that something unusual is going on, while disagreeing on the interpretation. Here a related but not identical scientific need to having a lot of replications is to have a recipe that will allow professionals to replicate for themselves whatever effect is being reported within their own labs, so that they can rule out competing hypotheses for themselves. Having such a recipe would probably lead to a lot of replications. There have been claims of such a recipe, although I’m doubtful that one that is straightforward to use has been fully disclosed yet.
So my view as a skeptic (and not a skeptopath - any such label would be wide of the mark).
The very many high quality and slightly above unity COP values, especially from McKubre whose documentation of his experiments is superb, points to something likely real. The effect appears to be proportional to input power (with some threshold before activation, and also not always active). That fits Kirk’s suggestion of some unexpected phenomenon that changes calibration better than an extremely power and energy dense nuclear effect. Why? Because any such would be expected often to give much larger excess power values, and indeed to have power related to temperature rather than power in. Although the fact that any temperature relationship appears to be proportional to difference from ambient, rather than Kelvin value, again pushed an observer in the direction of a calorimetry anomaly. Should there be a reaction anomaly, the timescales here make chemistry impossible so it would have to be nuclear, or some reaction totally unexpected. That is again negative, because the nuclear proposition is also (quite strongly) unexpected due to departure from normal branching ratios.
On top of that - probably real, and certainly mysterious - anomaly, we have a collection of other phenomena:
Reports of much higher power generation. These however do not seem to survive replication in well-controlled environments. Jed would point to the HAD inferred by MF after his boil-off experiments. I remain very unconvinced by that since the assumptions that lead to HAD inference are based on normal cell calibration and operation - there is no direct control to ensure that these inferences are safe, and no guarantee, in this case, that some chemical mechanism is not involved. Other high power reports seem just to be bad experimental design not properly validated, or explained by short-term chemical changes. Rossi being a classic but very atypical example of bad experimental practice in that his level of obvious badness is much higher than typical. I’d not mention him with the rest except that the LENR community considers him as possibly working on their stuff.
Sporadic reports. In some cases there are single experiments, not replicated by the same team with the same apparatus. In any field other than LENR these would be considered “unknown experimental error” and not considered.
Reports of nuclear reaction products. Again the problem here is that these things are looked for, and the results all one way or another marginal and in nearly all cases much lower than expected from any plausible nuclear mechanism. Should the UoAustin attempts to get high quality replicated correlation between He and excess heat show positive results that would be a big deal, and also indicate strongly a possible mechanism. But, that experiment needs to be done carefully to eliminate the various obvious false positives that could exist, and could explain earlier results.
So none of this collection looks to me like justifying LENR as likely mechanism, although there are elements in it that remain mysterious and thus justify further targeted research.
THH
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Aug 13th 2017
#246
Quote from THHuxleynew
That is again negative, because the nuclear proposition is also (quite strongly) unexpected due to departure from normal branching ratios.
I think it is very important to separate the question of whether a specific LENR experiment exhibits a nuclear phenomenon from whether it exhibits the preferred nuclear explanation of the paper’s authors. I personally am highly doubtful there is any kind of fusion of deuterium going on, although I am willing to go along with the experimental finding of evolution of helium at this point. The author’s suggested mechanism is often quite specific, identifying a candidate reaction or two. Evolution of helium is itself quite astonishing if not erroneous, but it’s a more general finding, not tied to any specific mechanism. In such a context, the question of branching ratios appears premature. Better to start with a general finding and either nail it down or conduct experiments that show clearly that it is something else.
Are there any other possible explanations for the evolution of helium? There are several, each of which will pose a challenge for physicists for different reasons, but none of which imports the whole branching ratio problem. There’s even a mundane explanation involving entrapped helium whose credibility I am not in a position to assess, but which others claim lacks credibility because of things like the finding of a correlation between excess heat and helium.
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 13th 2017
#247
Jed, you have consistently missed my point throughout this entire discussion. I am not disputing or challenging any particular LENR results, or the entirety of them for that matter. I am not, in fact, weighing in on whether the phenomenon exists at all. What I am saying - and all that I am saying - is that the overall status of the field is that the pheonomeon is controversial and is not considered to be settled science. You can point to whatever abuses or conspiracies you would like, you can make your own rules about whose opinions count, but you are simply delusional if you think that the matter is settled in the scientific community except in the minds of a small fringe group of individuals. But if It makes you feel good to say that nobody else matters, so be it.
1
Adrian Ashfield
† Deceased Member
473
Aug 13th 2017
#248
interested observer,
Why is it still controversial science when there have been half a dozen good replications by well known laboratories? That here have been 80 or 180 (depending on whose count you believe) other replications is icing on the cake and irrelevant.
That is quite enough to prove the point in normal science. To not believe it is pathological.
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 13th 2017
#250
@AA: fine. Everyone except cult members is pathological. LENR is not controversial at all. It must be nice to be part of the tiny slice of humanity that has seen the light.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#251
Quote from THHuxleynew
The very many high quality and slightly above unity COP values, especially from McKubre whose documentation of his experiments is superb, points to something likely real.
This statement is a distortion. McKubre and others have published many COP values that are far above unity, including ones with no input power (an infinite COP).
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#252
Quote from interested observer
Jed, you have consistently missed my point throughout this entire discussion. I am not disputing or challenging any particular LENR results, or the entirety of them for that matter. I am not, in fact, weighing in on whether the phenomenon exists at all.
It does exist, so your assertions have no point. Your observations are easily explained. People reject cold fusion because of ignorance and politics.
Quote from interested observer
What I am saying - and all that I am saying - is that the overall status of the field is that the pheonomeon is controversial and is not considered to be settled science.
It is not considered “settled science” because people are misinformed, ignorant or irrational. Not because of the content of the science. The problem is political. If this were any other experimental finding, no one would question it.
Quote from interested observer
You can point to whatever abuses or conspiracies you would like, you can make your own rules about whose opinions count,
First, I do not point to conspiracies. There are none as far as I know. Second, let me repeat that it makes no difference whose opinion we are talking about. If, as is likely, 50 years from now no one believes cold fusion exists, it will still exist. It has existed since the beginning of the universe. It is a physical fact of nature, and the number of people or the quality of the people who believe in it has no impact on that.
It is not a logical error to point out that relevant exerts in electrochemistry and calorimetry confirmed cold fusion. This is evidence that it exists. But it is not the kind of strong, direct, physical evidence you see in experimental results. It is secondary evidence. People such as Mary Yugo, who cannot understand the experimental literature, should fall back on this secondary evidence. She should trust the experts because she is incapable of evaluating the facts herself.
Quote from interested observer
but you are simply delusional if you think that the matter is settled in the scientific community
I never said anything remotely like that. That would be like asserting that Wegner’s theory of continental drift was settled as true in the scientific community in 1950. Everyone knows it was not. However, the theory was correct, and the facts showed it was, so the opposition was ignorant or political, without a scientific basis. That goes for cold fusion today.
Science is not a popularity contest. It makes no difference at all what the “scientific community” thinks is settled. The issue can only be judged with reference to experimental data and the laws of nature. By those standards, cold fusion is real. If you could show that every member of the scientific community disagreed with that conclusion, you would only prove that scientists are often wrong. Anyone who has read history knows that. If you were then to ask several of these scientists about cold fusion, you would find they know nothing about it and their conclusions are based on ignorant rumors and nonsense. Programmers, businessmen, army generals and bankers are also often wrong, and they often base their opinions on empty nonsense. That’s the human condition.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#254
Quote from Eric Walker
I personally am highly doubtful there is any kind of fusion of deuterium going on, although I am willing to go along with the experimental finding of evolution of helium at this point.
That statement seems contradictory to me. If there is helium evolution (as opposed to helium leaking in) then it has to be deuterium fusion. Where else could the helium be coming from? What else in the system and what other reactions can produce alpha particles (helium)?
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Aug 13th 2017
#255
There are several theories for how helium could be produced. Many prominent LENR researchers assume it is the result of some combination of deuterium. A possibility I like is induced alpha decay of an alpha emitter such as platinum. As you have pointed out in the past, such a possibility is contraindicated by the studies seeking to show a per-4He energy release of ~ 23 MeV, which is what one could expect for fusion of deuterium. But the work I’ve reviewed in this area feels much more tentative, and I don’t take the conclusion of ~ 23MeV/4He as a sure thing at this point.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#256
Quote from maryyugo
Sounds a lot like religion and not science. Prime principles... physical facts of nature...
As far as I know, experiments are the only standard of truth in science. Not public opinion and not the views of the majority of the scientific community. Whether a claim is true or false in science can only be decided with reference to experimental results and the known laws of physics, such as the laws of thermodynamics in the case of cold fusion.
What other standards are there? How do you think scientific questions are settled?
Quote from maryyugo
People reject cold fusion because the evidence has always been of insufficient quality and consistency.
If that were true, there would be scientific papers pointing out why and how the evidence is insufficient and inconsistent. There are no such papers. You cannot point to one, except Shanahan and Morrison, as I said. I invite you to read them and judge whether they make a valid case or not.
You cannot just wave your hand and declare that evidence is this, that, insufficient, or inconsistent. You have to back up those claims. If you have not written a paper showing insufficiency, you have to point to a paper by some other author. Since there are no such papers, your argument fails. Vague generalizations without any supporting evidence or specifics are not science.
There are, of course, countless statements on the internet claiming insufficiency and whatnot, and that is what Wikipedia and the Scientific American claim. However, if you compare what these sources say to the actual content of the experiments and scientific papers, you will see that Wikipedia authors know nothing and they are describing a fantasy. They are not critiquing the actual experiments. Also, the reasons they give make no scientific sense. They resemble statements by Morrison about recombination, which are physically impossible and 5 orders of magnitude wrong, or statements by Shanahan, which violate Faraday’s laws, thermodynamics, and which are easily disproved by the actual data from experiments.
4
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#257
Quote from Eric Walker
There are several theories for how helium could be produced. Many prominent LENR researchers assume it is the result of some combination of deuterium.
That would be fusion. Are you saying you do not think that is happening?
Quote from Eric Walker
A possibility I like is induced alpha decay of an alpha emitter such as platinum.
This cannot explain the high levels of heat in the cell, because there is no doubt the palladium cathode is the source of the heat. This is readily apparent by many methods. The simplest and perhaps best method is what you see in a boiling cell with no input power. Close-up videos of this show that the boiling water all originates at the cathode, not the anode. The cathode is hot, and it remains hot for hours or days. The anode is the same temperature as the other wires in the cell such as the thermocouples and lead wires. There is no boiling around them, either. Also, the palladium is the source of x-rays, not the platinum. So, there must be some other nuclear reaction occurring in the palladium.
Would these reactions produce measurable transmutations in the platinum? I am not aware of any such transmutations, but people may not have looked for them.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#258
Quote from maryyugo
I am reminded of listening to lectures on nuclear physics by Edward Teller towards the end of his life. He was always direct and clear, regardless of how complex the subject was.
You may want to learn what Teller had to say about cold fusion towards the end of his life.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Aug 13th 2017
#259
Quote from JedRothwell
That would be fusion. Are you saying you do not think that is happening?
I’m saying I reserve judgment. To my own mind, fusion of deuterium has not been given more than a circumstantial basis, and one that remains open to questions. I’m not trained in any relevant field, so it’s just my own opinion. One that I hold nonetheless as someone watching the field.
You can still have the palladium cathode be the location of the heat in a scenario where the platinum is gradually electroplated onto the palladium cathode. Deuterium, somehow important to the PdD electrolytic system, migrates towards the cathode and not the anode. Perhaps it is at the cathode, then, that the deuterium and electroplated platinum interact. As for transmutations in the platinum, I believe that would be an implication.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 13th 2017
#260
Quote from Eric Walker
You can still have the palladium cathode be the location of the heat in a scenario where the platinum is gradually electroplated onto the palladium cathode.
That is a possibility. However, there is other evidence against your hypothesis. Such as:
Pt-D and Pt-H cathodes do not produce heat.
Several cold fusion systems have no platinum in them, such as Arata’s, yet they produce heat. Granted, they have not been widely replicated.
If there were transmutations in electroplated Pt, I think people would have detected them, but perhaps those transmutations would be indistinguishable from transmutations in the Pd. I do not know enough to judge this issue.