What do you guys think of claims for stuff like cold fusion?

I show you evidence, but nothing can convince... I'm used with that impossibility.


It is hard it imagine the reality of academic science, and people either fall into the care bear version of popper and total oil baron conspiracy.
There is nothing exceptional is that opposition.

First there is no mechanism to explain those reactions, and the evidences demand much competence to be understood.
Don't ask a physicist about advanced calorimetry, they abandoned the domain since the 1950s, for the chemists.

Thomas Kuhn, and history show that when you don't have a mechanism to explain evidences, people deny the reality, rather that accept their ignorance, especially scientists.

Then it is evident that all was decided in may 1989, and the groupthink, the mutual assured delusion, get locked after the unbelievable insults send in the conference of Baltimore and replicated by many influential and uninformed actors.

see the origin of the consensus (no improvent since) http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf

for the details of the Baltimore conference, it is well described in Beaudette book.... very educative.
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35


the rest is not conspiracy, but groupthink, coward scientist, coward journalists, and uninformed ambitious parasites (mindguards).

there is a funny article on Titanic and Cold Fusion myth
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

In fact the academic world is no more opposing LENR.
they don't criticise cold fusion, they ignore it. Same for media.

Did you hear anyone ridiculing Carl page for being at a fringe cold fusion conference ? Nasa ? Airbus chief Scientists ? no, because journalist interested in that domain know that they will be ridicule today or tomorrow, whatever they state.

Things advance slowly, slower than what supporters imagine, much faster than what uninformed mainstream imagine.

as usual.

Read that article on Wright Brothers and CF
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

History of innovation and discovery is not what we imagine at school. See the Gordon+Semmelweis+Pasteur dramma to see real science based on solid evidences facing consensus and theory. See Shechtman, Wegener, even Watson&Crick by themselves, ... avoid wikipedia BTW.

 

AlainCo, posting conspiracy theory babble in this forum does not make { Emilia } and me happy moderators. Cut it out. If you want to discuss this kind of stuff move it to the Miscellaneous forum, because it doesn't belong in the SciTech forum.

 

It seems that you simply cannot accept the peer reviewed papers, like in Current science, Naturwissenschaften.

What is funny is that you interpret the paper of McKubre who explains that the consensus you repeat is based on 2 failed experiments, done by now proven incompetent teamps, who had not a single chance to observe LENR given their incompetence, and the lack of knowledge on LENR triggering condition at that time, as "it is just an evidence that it could be not working".

yes, you are right, MIT and caltech simply proved nothing... but they used their influence to launch insults, attacks, defunding, reviewing blocking....

It seems you did not understand how unethical was the Baltimore conference? (read Beaudette)
do you support this kind of practice ? or do you judge it is simply unacceptable ?
What McKubre write is simply that all was decided by Baltimore...

The experiments came later, in the 1990s, and it was to late to remove the bias.

You cite bias, and it is clear when good papers are rejected by nature not even being reviewed (Report 41 Denino), when positively reviewed papers are rejected (Oriani), or wne erroneous papers that break consensus in calorimetry and electrochemistry (lewis, hansen, morrison) are nor retracted by Nature or Science, despite evidence.

This is a mechanism that is known, and I cannot convince you because it seems you never have integrated Semmelweiss, Wegener, nor you are competent enough to understand that MIT and Caltech experiment were simply broke and tweaked by the bias you denounce.

This is fact, and I see you don't accept those facts.

This is not a conspiracy. You state a conspiracy theory when you say that Fleischmann and Pons, or Bockris, who were among the best electrochemist on the planet at that time were incompetent.
The consensus in media support a fraud and a conspiracy theory when you support the theory of Taubes on Bockris tritium experiment. That is not an accusation, but a simple fact. This theory is not possible. Storms have explained how adding tritium could have given the results), and is even based on a cherry picked statistic (of DoE visit correlated with results), that was exposed by texas AM statistic department.

There is no conspiracy as all is public, and simply there is exactly all you denounce.
there is fraud, visible, there is bias, visible, there is bad science, visible...
There is non reviewed evidences facing reviewed evidences, published or at least available on internet.

did you simply read any of the documents I cite, honestly ?

did you support the 4 , the only 4 , papers that tried to criticize F&P, and the answers that debunk those theories ?



Now for industrial claims, even if data are more circumstantial, it seems you think you are more intelligent than Elforsk, Nasa, Boeing, Airbus, Tohoku University, Tom darden, ... that they are less informed than you are.... may I laugh?

Maybe I don't master English language, but I have read more evidences than you, it is clear. Don't feel shy, I watch the domain since 2012 and I have now a good network, from business to science.

I cannot convince those who refuse to read seriously, the papers and their references, the critics, and the critics of the critics. SciAm accepted the reality of Wright brothers plane, not only many years after they flight in public, with written certified testimony and journalist report, but they accepted it 1 years after it was sold to French Army. Before that they were laughing at "Wright Aeroplane and it's fabled performance".

There is a proverb who says: you cannot wake up someone who just pretend to sleep.

It takes time.

Let us talk of bias, you love bias, so I give you bias and misconduct, fraud, and incompetence... nothing different from what you blame the hundreds of LENR scientists . Because, you are right, science is not clean. this is not supporting a conspiracy to say there is some bias, some funding bias, some ideological bias, as in all human activity.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedg.pdf#page=138 page 138, about teh errors in MIT calorimetry
The vision of the editor of MIT paper no less, http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

about how Science refused to correct Caltech paper http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

The comparison of caltech,MIT, F&P and Longchampt calorimetry that sure you did not read http://newenergytimes.com/v2/confer...s-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

The paper of Oriani that was rejected, after a positive peer review...
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf
no weakness found, just get away.

The letter of rejection of Science to ENEA DeNinno paper on Heat and He4 correlation (there is a review paper in current science on that subject, one of the best evidence)
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf
and the report itself
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

the claim that bias is the only source of positive results LENR research is a wildcard argument, based on no evidence.

You can consider that review article that try to answer your question , it it real :
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcoldfusiond.pdf

There is a mass of results, peer reviewed, some even in renowned journals (not the top wone who as I show have a coherent policy not even to consider anything around LENR).

Just see page 6
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6
the list of reviewed paper... i know you love reviewed papers... in journal of analythical electrochemistry, in naturwissenschaften...

and recently in CurrentScience, reviewed by physicist, who never worked in LENR .

If you doubt on the quality of the review, it was done by non LENR physicist too.
You argument fall down.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/CurrentScience.pdf

anyway who care, there is already investors.
you refuse to consider those evidence, as all other scientific evidences.
Just don't try to prevent others to considers the mass of available evidence, complex, but converging.


I don't support a conspiracy theory where thousands of evil and incompetent scientists fraud by pleasure, inventing experiments and results. I just support classical evolution of science where a phenomenon that have no theory is rejected by those who don't practice it, from their armchair, producing no paper, just interviews...

You are right, there is bad science, bias, frauds, incompetence. I just says that it is concentrate on a dozen of influential people, who convinced the crowd of lazy believers by tweaks, insults, politics, money, but not by science.

People who don't know what to think (good!), should simply take a month to gather evidences.
What I give already is only a beginning, and most interesting data is in the bibliography and citations.

I don't want to convince, I want people to consider the tons of available but complex evidences, and a biased mind cannot understand in 30seconds.
It took me 2 month.


Hope this helps people to make their own opinion, based on evidences.
Good reading.

 

Well said.

I'm not going to say out of hand that CF/LENR is impossible/doesn't work (and neither did Emilia), but as an outsider who's been watching the discussion in this thread, I tend to take a very dim view of people who cry about mainstream science somehow silencing or oppressing them.

My understanding of LENR is that, while some have had positive results, they aren't reliably reproducible. At the bare minimum, you don't start trumpeting your success unless and until you have that. Otherwise, all you have is an inconclusive result--possibly an accident, possibly fraud, but definitely not some amazing breakthrough. The breakthrough is in figuring out how to get that positive result every time. LENR doesn't seem to be anywhere near that, and if the stuff I've seen about high-profile figures keeping details of their mechanisms/experiments secret is true, I have to wonder what they're hiding. (Just kidding, I don't really have to "wonder": it's almost certainly fraud.)

See, this is how science works:

1. Someone conducts an experiment and gets a promising result.
2. They conduct the experiment again. If they get the same result, it's time to try it again and probably a few more times.
3. They're certain their experiment works and it gets exciting results. Great! Share absolutely everything about how the experiment works, and what its results should be.
4. Wait for others to reproduce it. If no one else can, you screwed up somewhere. You left something out, or there's some variable affecting your experiment that you aren't accounting for.
5. But if everyone else can reproduce your results, congratulations! You did science right!

LENR seems to go straight from step 1 to 5. "I got this one good result this one time, everybody listen to me! This changes everything!" No, it doesn't. Not until anyone with the same materials and information you have can produce your same positive result.

It's funny because I've seen very similar things in the world of battery technology. Some company or group or individual claims they've made a breakthrough, then it turns out to be an accident/fluke, or something they simply can't repeat, or ends up having some other crippling flaw. It's why battery technology hasn't had any revolutionary improvements in the past 30 years. It sucks, but that's science: there are no shortcuts.

If you have to go around complaining about how people aren't listening to you, that mainstream scientists are ignoring you, and meanwhile you have experimental results that can't be repeated and are making excuses for, what you're engaging in is not science, but propaganda.

 

Ok, there is many question in the domain.
I answered to key critics on the LENR science, and it is in fact more important than about E-cat.
Part on the reason to doubt on E-cat is the massive rejection of LENR. I say it is unfounded.
Once you admit that, E-cat is an industrial claim.
Like someone pretending to have a working TWR.

there are many absurd and good critics on Lugano report.
Mostly absurds on Ferrara report.

The test was independent, as the testers were alone with the reactor except from a few hours when launching and stopping the reactor needed some experience to turn the controller wheel, and nothing else.

There is also a misinterpretation, corrected by Bo Hoistad on the isotopic results, Rossi did not touch the reactor while emptying or filling it. He was present just to check that there was no mistake.
http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/...with-hanno-essen-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/

anyway the handling of emmissivity of the reactor is more than dubious. It should be remade. however if you can blame the physicist for that mistake, the simple fact that Industrial Heat, the company of Tom Darden (not Rossi) gave the reactor to the physicist is enough. It shows that Industrial Heat is confident enough to let independent testers handle the device... no hidden mirrors inside.


Moreover the previous generation of reactor was also tested in Ferrara.
Part of the controversy of those tests is that skeptic imagined mirror and smoke, stage magic, they would have smuggles electric energy inside.
It looked hard to admit, as the testers inspected the electric installation, looked for hidden wires, checking the weight of boxes...

This trick was impossible in Lugano test as the electric setup was made independently, and there was double metering before and after the control box)...

The error of lugano testers, not to have calibrated at high temperature) is putting the thermal measurement of Lugano aside.
However it does not challenge the astonishing isotopic measurement, which show a great isotopic shift.
As the setup itself remove the hypothesis of total fraud, the ferrara test, and especially the ferrara meltdown, let clear evisence there is huge anomalous heat produced.

With an incredible bias one could imagine an unintelligent Industrial heat who have a device that produce only huge isotopic shift in long duration and huge heat production for short time, and no ability to produce usable energy... they give unreliable device to testers without any control on it...

or if Industrial Heat is developing a very efficient nuclear reactor, with intent to sell it, and confidence that it works.

If someone says that they do all of that, giving reactor to physicist, attending LENR conference, talking to business journal, making dummy powerplant for photographs, just for a broken reactor that never worked consistently, expecting the physicist make a student error, I can rationally doubt on his common sense.

Now this does not makes an industrial success... things can go bad, as usual, but the main story, the one that interest people here is that E-cat is real, LENR is real, there is no theory, and with much work it is a revolution.
This is why many people, despite the terrible opposition and incredible bias that I described earlier, are daring to make their company, their university, enter this domain...

Of course the Lugano report have to be remade, and to be honest I expect it will be ignored , prefered to the field test of the heat factory, ending early 2016.


Brillouin is a less developed Story.
At ICCF17 SRI published the result of a test where they produced a COP of 2 with total control. This is very important fact, even with a small COP of 2.
Until now there are only word, which is annoying, but compatible with normal business procedure.

Beside that there is mostly science, and small startups.
Results are sometime interesting, sometime powerful but unreliable, sometime controlled but with little power, but all is far from E-cat.

In fact E-cat is not so important, except as an Hiroshima evidence, and as soon as the facts are accepted normal research will flourish like what happened when Wright brothers convinced France, then Europe, then USA, that human flight was possible.

 

It seems we reach a point of agreement, partial.

The current result, beside industrial claims which obbey different rules, are sometime replicated but not very convincing for people not aware of the domain.
For example Iwamura was replicated by Toyota...
F&P was replicated by Longchampt, and less exactly by hundreds of others.

saying it is not replicated is not exact, but it is not very reliable, except for some protocol, like codeposition.

Now about serious games, If you cannot understand that E-cat is real, it is maybe that you don't understand game theory and business.

What I dislike is that on one side you ask science, but say that you need industrial evidence, engineered result, off-the-shelf reliability...
and on the other side when facing a company that behave exactly like a company having a working reactor, and cearly not a scam, you ask for scientifi evidences, academic reproducibility.

If I was in bad mood I would say you try to find excused not to admit reality.

Note that this behavior is very common... people ask for "tea kettle" but refuse a tea kettle that is a black box.

 

I don't understand. What's wrong with waiting to hail something as a breakthrough until it has shown itself to be reliably repeatable?

Seems to me it's bad science to take some inconsistent results and claim you have evidence of something revolutionary.

 

Speaking as a non-scientist and regular dude, the standard calls of conspiracy and academic malfeasance ring hollow. If cold fusion worked consistently and reliably, and the reactors and generators were functional and scaleable, companies and governments would be falling over themselves to build and use them. We aren't there yet, and it is apparent we may never get there - which is sad.

 

It is perfectly safe to wait for the produce to be industrial.
What make me react is more when people try to convince others that it is not real, without having the available data, and without expression of just reasonable uncertainty.

About "conspiracy" , I don't support that theory.,it is not conspiracy, it is known phenomenon in organization and markets (I survived to Internet and Subprime groupthink). Denying it happened is breaking history. I know it is hard to admit, as science have a super-human image, but as now I have many contact with scientist, I know it is very human.
If you follow the story of Bockris, you will see clear bullying, horsemanure in the mailbox... other scientist like Miles were moved to the stock. Papers like Oriani were rejected despite positive review (please explain that with peer-review theory, without involving bias). You probably did not investigate long enough on that subject to know those episodes, I have an unfair advantage I agree.

It is also quite strange for people who imagine that thousands of experiments were manufactured, to claim that official science (claimed official only when it does not do cold fusion, instantly fringe when a military or national lab replicates LENR) is always right, while history show example of the opposite. Dislike for conspiracy theory is science at least should be coherent, and not reserved to the handful of experimenters who interpreted their failure as evidence of absence and proposed refuted theory of artifacts.

We should better calm. there is no conspiracy, just usual human-made science.
Please don't say LENR does not exist, as it is unscientific, unreviewed claim, and challenge hundreds of reviewed papers. However some results are dubious, and could be ignored until confirmed better. Not all, that is all the point.

About industrial claims like E-cat or Brillouin, it is rational to be cautious, both to prepare for an industrial revolution (Statoil, NTVA, Airbus, Elforsk are preparing), or as a business of technical failure. staying away from that is a good idea, but is is hard as the impact is huge.

 

Yeah. wow......just wow.

 

Not really. Sorry.

That's what I was curious about, and you saved me the time to check. Can't say I'm surprised.

Oh, and Emilia: I have a very partial, very poor, and very limited understanding of philosophy of science, but from what I understand, I must say that you and I agree on Kuhn's work.

 

I thought you and Emilia were very bright...

OK those LENR people must scour the internet looking for any kind of mention of their technology.... That's interesting.

OK what about wind and solar power? Just to move the thread along...

 

She certainly is. Very much so, in fact.

I kinda used to be, now I'm just running on accrued cred.

 

https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044610

It's not a smoking gun but its an interesting NASA related paper. I didn't think it merited a new topic so I necromanced this one. I never saw this thread before. I actually know just barely know who Alain is and he's no troll or anything. Odd to see the name have popped up.

edited to add: before his name pops up, Rossi is either a fraud or deluded or both.

 

I’m starting to think if we ever see fusion it will be a super laser hitting a palladium target inside a tokamak :/