Ever since Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons presented their startling results in 1989, claiming that they had discovered a process that generated anomalously high amount of thermal energy, possibly through nuclear fusion at room temperature, cold fusion has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community.
For anyone open to believe the contrary, here are three good reasons (remember that cold fusion would be a clean, inexpensive and virtually inexhaustible energy source that would use a gram of hydrogen to run a car for a year):
1. Lessons from cold fusion archives and from history.
A comprehensive outlook on the field of cold fusion, including references to papers with specific instructions for anyone who would like to reproduce the Fleischmann and Pons effect (explaining why it is so difficult). Presented at the cold fusion conference ICCF-18, 2013, by Jed Rothwell who runs lenr-canr.org — an online library with documents and papers regarding cold fusion.
2. The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt
A paper from 2008 by Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts, indicating four criteria for reproducing the Fleischmann and Pons effect. Cravens and Letts had gone through 160 papers concerning generation of heat from the F&P effect, and found four criteria correlated to reports of successful experiments, whereas negative results could be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of those conditions.
3. A brass ball remaining four degrees warmer than another.
An elegantly designed experiment by Dennis Cravens, performed recently at NI Week 2013, where two brass balls were resting in a bed of aluminum beads at constant temperature. Yet, one of the brass balls, containing another kind of experimental set-up with similar materials as in Fleischmann’s and Pons’ experiment, remained four degrees warmer than the bed and the other ball, with no external energy input. This is not a replication of the F&P effect, but indicates that the process can be implemented in different forms (gas loaded instead of electrolysis).
Please add a comment if you have any other comprehensive and convincing document to suggest, regarding cold fusion or LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).
Mats Lewan: The Biggest Shift Ever. 
please don’t tell that that model of powermeter is fooled by a triac dimmer, up to missing 83% of the power, while being on part of the time…
if you want to make an electrician laugh…
It is certainly a very good instrument, but I suggest you take a look at the specifications! I dont give you the link here, but it is easy to find via Google. For power measurements they require a power factor > 0.5 Ind I don’t see a reason for them to lie about that! This is probably the reason for some power companies to be reluctant to allow dimmers.
@AlainCo:
I thought I sent this a week ago butcannot find it in the thread, so I send it again:
My source of 90 degrees is the figures in the appendix and the claim that the trade secret circuit is areplacement of the Triac in the previous tests. The current in a Triac is regulated by changing the phase where the current path is opened. Thus the current starts at a prescribed phase and ends when the voltage goes through zero, provided that the load is essentially resistive, which seems to be the case. From the waveform shown in the appendix, we can see that the current starts at about 1/12 of a period before it stops, i.e. it lasts between 60 ̊and 90 ̊after the voltage maximum. This means that the fundamental frequency of the current is between 60 ̊ and 90 ̊ shifted after the voltage and the cos(phi_1) < 0.5. The current frequency spectrum in the appendix shows that the fundamental frequency RMS value is << the total I_RMS and thus the power factor
PF = I_RMS_1/I_RMS*cos(phi_1)<0.5 for the reliable power measurements, so an important effect of the trade secret circuit is to invalidate the power measurement. Did anyone think that the current waveform could have any effect on an unknown and unspecified nuclear reaction enclosed in metal some distance from the current?
This can only say that the measurement is unreliable, not haw big or in whar direction the error leads us, but we may recall the teat a year ago when an expert from SP visiting Rossi with his own power meter got three times as high input power as what Rossi measured simultaneousy. This gives an indication of the inreliability.
From http://defkalion-energy.com/technology/
“Defkalion Green Technologies invests heavily in R&D to expand its role in this new scientific field. (…)
(read more)”
click on the “read more” and you can see the following:
“During the course of our work, we have published the following technical papers:
Technical Specifications of Hyperion (is a link)
Presentation during NI Week, Austin Texas, August 2012 (another link)
Scientific Paper submitted ICCF – 17, Daejeong South Korea, August 2012 (third link)”
Guess what if you click on any of the above link, there…
By the way, you could also try directly:
Click to access HyperionSpecsSheetNovember2011.pdf
for example, expecially if you like 404 error.
But someone should tell them docs are still in the web, including unwanted pictures in appendix of some of them
ie:
Click to access HyperionSpecsSheetNovember2011.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos
Click to access Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper-ICCF-17.pdf
mr Hadjichristos, could you please tell Gamberale to bring them up again in the Defkalion Europe site? Or someone could think there is still something wrong among DFK Europe and DFK Greek – surely is not the case, is it?
You should also take a look at activity on that site: it is nice to have been waiting around a month to see the new stile and all those latin activities, like :
“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit(…)Quisque orci dolor, interdum et lacinia eget, mattis”
Don’t you find it useful in Hyperion story? You can get plenty of it there.
Time to phone to Europe Defkalion*, AlainCo? How good are you at dancing “minuetto”? Or would you like a “waltz”, instead?
*
European R&D Center:
5 via Bastia, Milano 20139,
Italy
Phone : +39 0253 92829
…ok, this time there where three links.
at least one I would like to anticipate to Alaincoe and all those who are interested on what a true believer in cold fusion thinks nowaday of Defkalion Europe and Hyperion. This one was answering at AlainCoe question on the freezing of commercial business between DFK Europe and DFK Greek
“Silvio Caggia” said:
@alain coetmeur
As soon as I can see the “danze cretesi” I will tell you about their beauty… Meanwhile I suggest you kizomba dance… :-D”
It is very clear, do not you believe it is?
Dance, AlainCoe, dance!
(simply to say : “I have a comment awaiting moderation”)
@cimpy
stop doing strawman with biological transmutation or alike… less evidence.
1.6Telsa is probably a mistake… the reason are easy to imagine as i explained to you.
it is more an indice of reality , because such proposed big investors fraudster don’t need to add that kind of incredible claims to their claims…
you mix LENR evidences in hydrides which only delusional people like you can ignore, with unproven/unreplicated claims like biological transmutation, the 1.6Tesla peak transient at 20cm (1.6 is possible, but at 20cm it start to be crazy), fractofusion … that is typicaly the manipulation techniques of people having no arguments. typicalof politicians or conspiracy theorists.
about defkalion all we have against their claim is YOUR opinion that the steam could not flow through the sewers… some crazy computation that it cannot be steam…
to assume you hypotheses we have to imagine even less credible hypothesis than what you critic…
we miss data to completely rule out your conspiracy. this is the classic victory of hyperskeptics over reality… add questions until there is no response, and then say it is evidence of fraud…
Sure defkalion have seen your method and know they have to play better.
things takes time. I know real projects takes many years… Defkalion like many sartup is taking more time than their initial estimation, and change of strategy facing problems…
anyway you should prepare sauce to swallow the crow… maybe not because as usual when we will show you evidence you will invent a crazy excuse like people suffering from asomatognosia…
I’m tired of trying to show evidence to a wall.
“about defkalion all we have against their claim is YOUR opinion”
Did you phone to Gamberale? You could collect a second opinion.
Are you sure I am a wall? Might not it be you have to clean your ears and open (at least a bit) your eyes?
I saw you asking the believers on 22 Passi. Which answer did you get? And do not forget they are “the believers“, not the skeptics. How good are you at dancing, AlainCoe?
Trust me, make that phone, as it seems as if you’re not in the mood to look carefully at what JCM (for example) told you on that, and even Gamberale said: might be you do not undertsand italian – in an interview with Melis he explicitly said “measurements matters”.
Now phone him and ask about “measurement matters” meaning,
You might discover the flowmeter got a bit confused.
I am not here to tell you “believe me”. I am telling you “go there (to the phone) and listen with your own ears”. Or you do not trust Gamberale? Might he be a skeptic in disguise in your opinion?
How is the Defkalion Europe site, today?
Let me guess: a very nice restyling, isn’t it?
Would you like to bet on how long it will take?
Speak with Gamberale, AlainCoe. Ask him how “new measurements” are going on. Do you missed the phone number? Is there, in that nice site I linked above.
If you’re not able to get Gamberale at phone, you should write a (private) mail to Daniele Passerini. I am sure he knows even more of what I know on this story.
Ask him privately, not aloud in the site as you did before: that story hurt him a lot, you know? The day before Hyperion was called the Greek E-Cat. The day after he was called the “Greek Hoax” or the “not-well-executed-theft”….Ouch…!
Might be he will answer you – and it could even be he will tell the truth on Hyperion – who knows?
Might be then you will start thinking on what you believed and what you got for it so far.
Might e yo will start hear to the voice of those here who do not seem so dummy as I am and who already told you what happened there.
We use to say: “Time to keep off salami from eyes”. Do you like salami, AlanCoe? How can you come here and say “the 1.6Tesla peak transient at 20cm is crazy”. Was not it part of assurements from Greeks? If it (now) for you is actually crazy, how about the other foolish things they told you?
You know Scaramucci measured neutrons. Do you know how? Do you know why we cannot have a serious replica of that nice experiment? Do you know why and how he found them?
And do you know anything about Ralfstonia Detusculana affair? I noticed you did not speak at all about Celani : could it be even you started understood something must be wrong with that “Star” of Cold Fusionists?
Who said “bring here new documents”?
AlainCo, do you know names like Violante, Enea, Infn ?
In that link above you van find a paper signed also by those names.
Happy reading.
In case you mess with italian language, it is this one: http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1310.4749v1.pdf
You should really appreciate it.
@cimpy
why Longchamps & F&P did not get a nobel is simple… most scientist are locked in groupthink like you… like most economist were laughing at Roubini… nothing new.
Did you really know history of science ? Semmelweiss, Wegener, Shechtman, and to a lesser extent DNA, Laser, … LENr is more shocking, more revolutionary, attacking the elite of science… that is sociology…. are you blink about groupthink… many scientist are aware of how politic is their community.
I know as Benabou says that you are locked… have to wait for lehman brothers to get bankrupt…
Fractofusion is another story, don’t make a strawman.
AlainCoe, no disbelief could really stop a working machine from working: plains are flying even if a dumb scientist said they could not the exact day they strart flying.
All my saying about Hyperion as a big fail would not have stopped the 1, 6 Tesla field if it was there.
Matter is : it was not there. And Gamberale can speak of any “new measurements” he likes: they will never find the flow claimed if conducted as they should.
Have you got it by now, AlainCoe? Or you do still believe that if you pulked the tube out of the waste, you would have been shot in another room by the wind? If so, next time go there and pull it out: you will see your iron blows a stronger wind.
In these days in Italy (you know many say “cold fusion speaks italian”?) some of those experinents are under the lens of a group of skeptics. As far as I can see (very few, I admit) the results are not what you wiuld like to ear. Nowadays we are after Celani, who claimed a lot of things, from new specimen of bactera that could have eaten what would have proved the nucklearity of his experiments (like the dog who eated your homework, you know?) to a victory (in his mind) replica of Arata compression experiment in opened cell (where Arata claimed to have reached 2000 bars and Celani made photos of 4 and a half bars, then wrote he reached 9 and a half, then said -voice, you know? At a microphone- he reached nearly 50.
I do not know what you think of him, but he also claimed excess of heat in various experiments, even when, measured by MFMP, the excesses disappeared unless using the lights trick Giancarlo showed you.
Celani is one among those who makes cold fusion. He is keeping on doing it since 25 years or around. Now that a serious team of skeptics is looking at his work, seems as if he is ready to be prepensioned. Or fired, might be.
Do you know that in 2004 he brought a paper at ICCF that had some (dummiest typoes?) mistakes that were corrected IN A LATER version of that oaper that was presented half an year BEFORE? And do you kniw why he presented that paper and not the second version? Sounds as if in that first paper presented LATER his name was among authors of it, while it looks like in the second version presented EARLIER his name was not there. Oh boys! A ghost author! Or might be he also invented a time machine…Do you really want me to disregard these small natrers and keep on believing he really found neutrons he his writing about in that paper? By the way, even the count of them using same numbers he wrote as if they were true gives odds results…And you now tell me about manipulated data…By the way, anyone asked the authors of that manipulation what happened there, or, as usual, a picture is enough?
I am sure you know Celani is not a small name in the world of cold fusion.
Now tell me again I should believe the claims. But first, show me a single working cold fusion machine.
One that could work despite the fact I do not believe in it. Of course, skeptics measurements in skrptics laboratory. You and even Celani may be in the room with your webcams, at your like…
I have a comment for you, AlainCoe, awaiting moderation. Might be it is because of it is a bit long.
I am making a summary here:
“Keep my suggestment: try a phone to Gamberale, to start with. Then ask to yourself how much you believed before in Hyperion. Then think on how much you do believe in E-Cat, in piezonuclear and in all the other stuff…”
@einar tennfors
what is your source about 90degreed phase shift ?
It is not in the report
note that for your claims to be canceling the value of the test you have to consider it is increasing apparent power by 500%
the wattmeter have a sampling frequency above 10kHz, and the clamp can go up to 1kHz…
to fool that instrument at 500% you should have a phase shift precisely set below the %
moreover as the waveforms and the spectrum shows, it is not a classic reactive phase shift (which is practically very hard at this power level ), but a triac switch control.
90% phase shift is only possible at very low power, nearly at zero power when the controller ask for no energy, and it is clear here that most power was measured when phase was much lower and cosphi big enough to ruleout 500% error.
I would like to know where came your data.
about F&P, their experiments have been replicated identically by Longchampt from CEA, and more or less by many, many hundreds.
Reason of failures identified from parameters, are enough to prove it is not an artifact, because artifact don’t depend on loading, current density, crystallography, impurities, polarity(!).
Saying it is DD fusion was a theoretical error, you can expect from electrochemist.
Same from many electrochemists who made errors with neutrons detectors.
as you can expect basic calorimetry errors from physicist of MIT, caltech and harwell.
It seems many myths circulate to justify the rejection of clear facts.
Speaking of myths, AlainCoe, did you phone to Gamberale?
I saw you asking for clues in the wrong place in my Country, but even there you got nothing at all.
Did you guess why?
About all the replica of F&P you claim, I ask you again how is it possible they did not get the Nobel. How is it possible no one among those funny people like Celani, Piantelli, Rossi, Cardone, Carpinteri, Iorio are obtaining same results with same tests. How is it possible they all do different stuff, they all claim for results of excess of heat and no one can realize a truly working device based on their findings…Someone must be really oppositive: do you believe it is all due to skeptics on web blogs keeping on saying those stuff do not work? It is a kind of heat you can really obtain only if everybody do believe? After around 25 years we are all here hearing “soon it will be ready: give us a bounch of millions of euro (or equialent in dollars) and a couple of lifes, and you will have it. Soon, very soon. Atound the time your nephews will have your age”.
In the meanwhile, partnership with greeks has been frozen, Rossi said he sold and is reported now to buy (small) apartments (secret -greek?- customer’s money) in the Usa, Celani lost respect, funds and laboratory in INFN, Carpinteri had to left INRIM, Cardone and Piantelli are both extremely silent and Iorio has same news in his site he had two years ago or the like.
But F&P were right, were not they, AlainCoe? Exactly as Nessie was really there….
Keep my suggestment: try a phone to Gamberale, to start with. Then ask to yourself how much you believed before in Hyperion. Then think on how much you do believe in E-Cat, in piezonuclear and in all the other stuff…
Have you noticed how long it is taking the restyle of europe defkalion site? Guess what’s happened, AlainCo…
Mats, straight in my eyes: do you see what kind of believing is producing your “if you trust measurements THEY are telling” way of doing?
Mats, did YOU phone to Gamberale? You know, he is able to speak English better than Rossi…
@Cimpy
Don’t worry — I get the info I need. I cannot tell you who I’m calling and who I’m not calling. It’s part of a journalist’s ethics not to unveil sources that want to remain unknown. (Actually it’s even forbidden in many countries, Sweden included, for authorities trying to investigate a journalist’s sources).
Never meant to ask you to reveal “who” you’re calling or not. It was a suggestion to do that call if you missed it: at least you would have a measure of “reality” as opposed to “believes”.
By the way, I am a supporter of the “non disclosure of sources” – and I am happy to know we share same group.
To AlainCoe:
I have carefully read the report from Elforsk test and reject it. I don’t think that the witnesses there had the intention to cheat, but the measurements of input and output power were obviously distorted. The input power was measured using a good instrument, but the phase between current and voltage was shifted by the industrial secret circuit to near 90 degrees, which is outside of the regime required for the instrument. The output radiation power measurement was calibrated with a slow change of power to keep equilibrium. The measurements were made with an ON/OFF sequence, too fast for reaching equilibrium.
About APS and F&P, the reason the claims by F&P were not regarded as pathological science earlier is that they had a good reputation and that the claimed to have measurements of excess power and the expected reaction products. When the article became available, first through internet and then in the Journal, it became clear that no reaction products were measured and that the excess power was questionable. No excess power was actually measured, but inferred because power is consumed for releasing oxygen at the anode, so if measured output=input, the power consumed at the anode can be assumed produced at the cathode. For each oxygen atom released at the anode, two hydrogen atoms enter the cathode. The Pd lattice can only keep about one H atom per Pd atom, so the lattice will be filled. When new H atoms come, some must leave the lattice and may unite with oxygen from the air and form water by Pd catalysed burning. That way we can have a closed circuit and no extra power release can be observed, in agreement with the measurements.
I agree with you that we should not ignore the collective effects in a lattice, after all it is these effects that hold the lattice together! I strongly object to the Defkalion discussion of Rydberg electrons in the lattice, the belong to vacuum conditions and very low temperatures. To evaluate the idea of masquerading protons, it is enough to look at the lattice electrons as they are. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle tells us that an electron can be very close to a proton only for a very short time, which makes it difficult for the proton to have enough time to come close to another nucleus.
To Mats, I like to ask what he means with the F&P effect, it is clear that they meant DD fusion, but their results have been replicated in many cases with light water and other lattices than Pd. Sometimes they are regarded as control experiments disproving F&P’s claims, sometimes they are interpreted as evidence for unspecified unknown nuclear reactions. It seems that as soon as the reactions are specified, it is possible to find the measurement errors, but unspecified effects cannot be disproven and are therefore regarded as true.
To Giancarlo,
Thanks for your hilarious illustration of energy measurement pitfalls.
Should be a reminder to all of us to take unverified claims with a pinch of salt.
mr Hopeful, be careful: you have sense of humor, and this could be really dangerous – if you start laughing, you might not be able to take LENR seriously, expecially when you read of some post hoc stories (like mu metal or the crash of the whole mechanism if a flowmeter is put at 3 meteres from it toward the end of the pipe, and so on)
Dear Mats,
Dear Giancarlo,
I believe you have to consider that there might be a difference in ratio heat/light energy. The lamps that remain a few degrees warmer probably emit a little less light, corresponding to the increased thermal energy produced. Over-all absorbed and output energy is equal and constant in this way.
You could be perfectly right, but please consider that your reasoning applies exactly in the same way to the differential cell experiment at MFMP (Celani’s cell replication) where the constantan has an emissivity of 0,09 whereas the NiCr reference wire has an emissivity equal to 0,85 so in this latter case more light is emitted and the glass stays cooler… Sorry, no excess heat
Many thanks
Dear Mats,
I think you could add one more evidence to the list you pointed out in the article. I just got the evidence of LENRs happening in an energy saving lamp (the electronic ones, those with mercury inside).
Last week I just took many pairs of them, exactly of the same type, except the color of the emitted light. I mean that the make was the same, the chinese ZHEJIANGHUAPAI (as it appears on the box), the electric values were 15W, 220-240V, 50-60Hz. The light colors were respectively 2700K (warm light) and 6000K (bright white light).
The lamps were feeded in parallel from the same socket and the absorbed power was recorded as a function of time. Well, in all the experiments, with 8 different lamp pairs, the temperature of the warm lamp was 3°C higher than the temperature of the 6000K light. It means an average of 46°C against 43°C (+/- 0,1°C). Statistically it is a meaningful result.
Since the absorbed power was always the same, the lamps were swapped in the lamp holders, the PT100 termocouples were swapped as well to avoid any systematic error, it has to be concluded that some kind of LENR reaction is taking place in the warm lamp, possibly due to the mercury isotopic fraction. The temperatures were taken in different places of the lamp bulb using a jig developed on purpose.
The experiment is fully replicable with minimum expertise and experimental means and everybody can try it.
Many thanks
Dear Giancarlo,
I believe you have to consider that there might be a difference in ratio heat/light energy. The lamps that remain a few degrees warmer probably emit a little less light, corresponding to the increased thermal energy produced. Over-all absorbed and output energy is equal and constant in this way.
Oh, we cannot afford all this skeptics who do not accept the experiment has been replicated everywhere! and I personally read a paper from Balooney Universtity stating the light had been carefully measured with a Defkalion spectrometrum, finding the excact contrary of what you said, Mats…Evidence and papers and tests are on my side, while uou are just moving in the mud…
Mats,
>if it turns out to work (produces an anomalous amount of heat, more than what is possible to explain by chemical reactions)
You where in that room with it. You can tell how hot it was (the room) compared with one with an iron or a boiler in it.
You can tell how much noise you heard
You can tell if you had any metal item in your pocket, and if it moved a bit or not at all. Or do you belive the mu metal(oh, what a nice invention!) would really have stopped the 1,6 Tesla field from attracting it? Or you’re deaf ? Or you’re really Sauna accustomed?
Come on, man: you were really near – weren’t you?
By the way did you signed any NDA paper?
@cimpy
Hyperion is not in that message. that you raise concern about one test which is not convincing, using an hypothesi which is more improbable than the concern you raised is not a surprise. I agree that this test was not enough rigorous to convince people who refuse LENR upfront, and need to be froced to admit facts…
for LENR you just raise the point I was trying to make you answer, you show that working on LENR is best way to get your funding cut, your career broke, and be treated of fraudster…
you just proved that. As soon as a good honest recognized scientists prove LENr works, he lose funding, recognition, jobs…
What you say about ENEA should be precised, but it seems it only prove opposition of some of the hierarchy. the fact that Violante could write in a report to EU, and organize a meeting woth some officials, yet without media, shows that people in EU are aware but situation is still very pathological…
did you notice NRL and SRI replicated ENEA on electrolytic cells ?
of course no. because that alone could be called an evidence.
no need to call hundreds of other papers.
Did you really say “Celani”, AlainCo?
You know what at the edge of INFN said one of those who would like to let Celani keep his laboratory? He said that free research must be kept free, even if there are (few) fraudolent and patyhological researchers.
Guess who were the fraudolent and pathological he was speaking about. And I am not speaking of someone who would like to ban Celani from INFN…
Mats, no excuse: I am waiting to read a sentence from you on Hyperion: did it make cold fusion, during your ten hours test, or not? Can you clearly state it is a working cold fusion device? Or is it a fraud? If you already wrote the answer, point me there with a link.
@Cimpy
Unlike you Cimpy, I still don’t exclude neither that it is working nor that it’s fraud, until convinced by proof for any of the cases. And if it turns out to work (produces an anomalous amount of heat, more than what is possible to explain by chemical reactions) I don’t exclude that the heat is produced by a hitherto unknown nuclear reaction — still not defined, since we can hardly prove that to be impossible.
I’m sorry, but you’re not convincing me at all. I need better proof both from people who claim that it’s working and from people like you who claim it’s fraud. I believe that is what is meant by being a skeptic. I keep investigating. Hope you do so too.
How can a skeptic replicate LENR ?
ask Robert Duncan ?
The problems with skeptics is that when they are convinced they became believers. and suddenly Nobel winners, top electrochemist, became fringe researchers…
Dawn Dominguez was skeptical… she works at NRL collaborating with SRI and ENEA.
Even Celani started to worked on LENR to disprove LENR…
Did you see E-cat test done by elforsk ? why did you reject it ?
because it was tested by people who admit it works ?
Do you think that skeptics like taubes would be more honest ? Let me doubt it… Since he could not find anything against tritium evidence he assumed fraud. agains isoperibolic calorimetry he accused of many artifact… which were addressed in many different way (stiring, isothermal, closed), and he did not consider that…
Pomp&Ericson just muddy the water with conspiracy theory, hopeful forgetting of detail (like thermocouple assisted IR calibration), and hyperskeptical methods … missing the simple size of required errors needed to prove their point.
An why not accepting the test report of Nelson (a man who bashed Rossi for his lack of cooperation during E-cat tests).
Your method is simply to forbid the evidence which are possible, or which exist already…
moving target is one key strategy in hyperskeptical method.
all is classic hyper skeptical method…
I tried to force you to answers
– how could APS seriously claim F&P was pathological science in 20 days ?
– how could 3 experiments, done in 4 weeks, using loose calorimetry, with negative results and no explanation of positive one, could be used to disprove positive results ? while the others results tooks months to work with top calorimethy methods?
– how could Science says “no room” for report 41 without even accepting peer-review process
– How could Nature throw Oriani paper which passed peer-review ?
– how could Nature refuse to correct caltech paper ?
– how could a physicist seriously ignore the possibility of collective effect in a lattice ?
– how could a physicist seriously could use a theoretical argument to ruleout an experimental result ?
If you cannot answer that question I can safely judge with good evidences that :
– there is a clear manipulation of consensus against LENR
– there is clear manipulation of peer-review and journals agains LENR
– there are clear organized terror agains scientist who support LENR
– there is no solid scientific argument against LENR
please answer that…
and afterward because you have nothing serious to answer, you have to admit that LENR is real, Thus that the industrial claims are not less solid that the NIF or ITER claims…
imagine if you were arguing on NIF or ITER calorimetry with your hyperskeptical arguments…
they won’t be credible …
Note also that to defend ITER and NIF, since their usefulness is null at short term they are more open to spread their design… they are a money hole, not a golden egg. strangely LENr reactors have a tendency to hide their privates, because they hope for money, and they invested their own private cash not taxpayer money.
I love symmetry… a good tool to see manipulation.
@cimpy
Thanks to explain, and support my claims.
A bird expert explained me that mole could not exist because you cannot fly in the ground.
In some top japanese kindergarten, they line up kids in a room, with bags of 20kg of rice in sealed bag.
The say : only the kid whose bag is moved the opposite side of the room will be selected…
who win ? only the kids who understand collective phenomenon like laser, superconduction, and don’t think as if they were alone on earth like a proton in a plasma.
in physics you can add many others solution, like screening (like soaping the floor), weak interaction (like charging a roller board)…
are you sincere when you say that LENr is not possible ? do you realise a kid can understand that ?
I cannot imagine a physicist cannot think like Yeong E Kim,
(google ego out petter gluck a veteran voice )
“My first moment of awakening happened when Fleischmann and Pons announced their experimental results in news media. Initially, my feeling of disbelief dominated about this discovery as a practicing theoretical nuclear physicist, as most of my professional colleagues did. As I was searching a possible theoretical explanation for the claimed discovery, I realized that the conventional nuclear theory could not be applied to deuteron fusion in metal. However, at the same time, I did not know how to formulate a theory for deuteron fusion in metal, even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.
When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature. Furthermore, I did not have slightest ideas for explaining the miracles #2 and #3. However my theoretical curiosity on the miracle #1 did kept my intellectual interests on the subject.”
or Einstein with Sternglass :
(google Sternglass X-ray tube LENR experiments lenr-forum)
“What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply looked at Sternglass’ data and then immediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve some sort of many-body collective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great explanatory power in our theory of LENRs).
Can you believe it — what a mind Einstein had —- even at that late stage in his life! At that point (1951), very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects were about. Well, Einstein surely did.”
(the page of the book is cited in the forum)
having no theory that work, does not mean that the theory claim it is impossible…
and anyway, if theory was saying so, it is the theory which should change.
–PS: I removel all links to pass moderation
Alainco, I can clearly say that you avoid to discuss on what is really going on at ENEA.
Might it be because of it is an italian version of ITER, and it is called “cold” fusion only in comparison with stars’ heat?
Who was misleading, turning the mud in the water, joking with words and so on?
Now, have a look at what REALLY is going on at ENEA, and tell me how far is this from your friends in Defkalion or in Leonardocop or Ampenergo or at INFN (lab Celani). And bear in mind this is a subject of TEST (which means they are trying to see if it can produce annything at all, not that is already settled it has ever produced a watt more of what entered)
from http://www.fusione.enea.it/WHAT/fusion1.html.it
(translation after this)
“Per ottenere in laboratorio reazioni di fusione, ad esempio, è necessario portare una miscela di deuterio e trizio a temperature elevatissime (100 milioni di gradi) per tempi di confinamento sufficientemente lunghi”
ie:
“To obtain in laboratory fusion reactions, for example, it is necessary to bring a mixture of deuterium and tritium at very high temperatures (100 million degrees) for confinement times sufficiently long
”
to add: “obtained through a magnetic confinement”
Do you believe Celani in his tubes is coming ever near the “100 million degrees” ? Do you believe he obtained the sufficiently long magnetic confinement? Do you believe Rossi did in that boiler? Or Defkalion?
And bear in mind this at ENEA is NOT a settled result but is a TEST to see if it can works. It is not even said it can work this way.
Now, tell me of working garage-build machines, or even of “confirmed replicas”, as I have not laughed enought till now.
Bring your flow-meter, next time, you kid.
@ Cimpy, re 100 mln degrees.
Excuse me Cimpy, but I think you have missed the essentials. What you are referring to is plasma fusion. No one has ever claimed that plasma fusion is happening in experiments like F&P or other set-ups possibly involving LENR. If something is happening — and excess heat, helium/tritium production etc indicate that something is happening — it’s definitely something else than plasma fusion. You cannot know whether this is possible or not unless you are God and have all the knowledge in universe. Theory doesn’t come first.
What you can discuss is:
1. whether experimental results are real or not.
2. Then, if you think they’re real you can start discussing what is happening.
Of course you can also believe that all results are fake, mistakes or wishful thinking, but eventually you would have to explain why, for each one of them.
Mats, what are you talking about? Celani? Rossi? Defkalion? Piantelli? Cardone? Carpinteri? ITER? Arata? Fleischmann and Pons? Or what directly came in these days when everybody found cold fusion? Or what?
Do you like marmor? Do you believe in costantana? Do you (still, Mats?) trust Hyperion made excess of energy? Do you believe Arata got millions of bars in an opened cell? Do you know his reactor has never been replicated? How is it possible? Did you hear about Fukushima? Is not it strange that no cold fusion reactors like the one “fully functioning” years ago are in place or at least in build in these days? Do you think Japans like radiations? Do you think anyone -even the hardest skeptic- likes them?
Show me a single LENR that can be replicated by a skeptic. Show me a working device (please, do not say “Hyperion”!) that can survive skeptics test (one where skeptics can bring their instruments, and can truly check te in and the out). And, please, do not tell me “it has already be done” or “the device is ready, but we are afraid you would steal the secret” or ‘we would like, but we cannot, as turning light on will make engine stop working” or “we surely will do as soon as we will be able to get patent for it in any Country where patenrs can be released”…
So to speak, have you read the story of Keely? You know, the one of the etheric machine…Can you tell me the differences with the E-Cat story? Or do you prefer to speak about thermalization of gamma ray? Or of “gamma founded with small traces of trizium”- do you know how much trizium you should have found? What would you like to speak about Mats? Of course, better you do not expect me to be God -only someone who would not believe in words, and that’s exactly the point: show me your best working device, Mats. Can you?
@Cimpy
I’m not talking about E-Cat or Hyperions now.
For starters you can check the links inserted in the updated post by Alain Co below. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers and other info there to dig into. And check the first link in my blog post here to get references for how to replicate F&P, also for skeptics.
Then, I repeat, if you believe all those papers describe fraud, mistakes or wishful thinking, just explain why. For each one of them. I believe lots of people would be ready to discuss your suggestions.
Again, Mats, you do like jokes. Seems as if you claim FF literature being true, and you ask me to prove it is not, to find the mistakes (not the fraud, Mats?) inside each single paper…
A pity half of them proves that the other half must be (or have been) wrong (not to speak of the lack of gamma – yes they were expected to be found, at least till someone stated they are not needed, after no one measured any gamma at all).
As another sample, I saw among others the name of Violante (ehy, this is from Italy! Do you still like Italy, Mats? Ever been to Napoli? Mind your pocketbook and your watch, while you travel there: there are smart guys, in that city, far more smart than your greek friend), who measured excess of heat in 2004. I do not understand why he does not measure it anymore inside ENEA – to tell the truth, I do not understand why, with such an expert of excess of heat (by the way, any news about his wonderful calorimeter?) ENEA is going to try ITER (so expensive, and even not so sure it can really work). A true mistery, don’t you belive, man? But there is more, if you like Violante: you should also know about De Ninnno and Del Giudice, and the famous “report 41”. Is not it strange that wonderful piece of paper who found correlation with He4 was not published on peer reviewed papers?
Oh, yes, I forgot: skeptics, the mud and the conspiracy we, the skeptics speak always of (is not this what AlainCo said? The skeptics speak of conspiracy)…
But keep on speaking of De Ninno: she asked for more money to keep on the research, after that one who lasted 3 years. Guess what? ENEA said “no”. That’s horrible, how could they? Was not ENEA the whole confirming cold fusion of Violante and De Ninno and Del Giudice? You know what happened after? Rubbia left ENEA – what a pity!- and the cold fuison chapter has been closed for those wonderful people.
Now, that is an old story, while there are more recent ones. For example, did you heard of Pamela Mosier-Boss? You know, around 2009 she ( an analytic chemistry of U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California, not a philosopher from Italy, you know?) found traces of Trizium and Elium, which should have proved fusion process. Now, you got a little matter here: if she is telling the truth, then Fleischman and Pons and all the others who found a lot of Trizium at the beginning of this story lied.
But if you say the people of the first hour said the truth, then Pamela Mosier-Boss is lying. Keep your choice: who do you want to believe, and why?
Nowaday, however, sounds of no use to ask Violante to repeat his wonderful measurements using his nice calorimeter (have you seen it, Mats? It is really nice, a pity he has not used it yet. Guess why?), as we have something better and more evident: let us speak of what you have been able to touch with your own hands, Mats, the Hyperion. You touched it, did not you?
Well, man, can you write clearly here if now you do believe cold fusion was acting there or if it was just a fraud?
Write it here, man, as I missed the line where you wrote it if you already did.
@cimpy
don’t try to distract the focus (hypercritical method). piezo nuclear is not proven few hundreds times a dosen of ways, by hundreds or experimentators, in a dozen of countries and a handful of various organization types.
Try to explain the tritium produced, the He4/heat correlation, the NASA gas permeation experiments.
Try to explain Robert Duncan conversion.
and please no conspiracy…
Try to explain why science dumped Report41 without reading, like 40 others journals…
Try to find a theory when it is not linked to a psychiatric problem, called collective delusion, groupthink, or alike. Try to find a theory when peer-review is not pathological.
work hard, because your case is desperate. it is more desperate than proving earth is flat.
after you can continue chatting on flowmeters.
and since LENR is real, why so many people imagine stage magic when a LENR reactor is presented ? (hint: cognitive dissonance).
Oh, yes, I forgot Piezonuclear…any news from that, AlainCo?
By the way, do you claim for Neutrons from F&P “replicas” or not? You know, sounds as if they appear and disappear on calling…
@cimpy
you are just doing what I say.
You focus on exactly the weak point, avoiding the hard evidences.
You are right that recent evidence are weaken than the work of Miles, of NASA, SRI, ENEA…
so what… that Celani made a demo is removing the fact that ST Micro replicated it in it’s lab ?
Of course Celani demo like Defkalion demo is a demo… you miss data and with hyper skeptical method can doubt of all and thus conclude that all is fraud.
lack of data… is just inconclusive… I feel frustrated too…
With Elforsk test, Pomp&Ericsson had to muddy the water, call conspiracy theories, attack instruments manufactures, ignore key element, ignore human factors, so they can start to introduce doubt, thus conclude that if measurement may be slightly erroneous, then it was fully erroneous, then absolutely false, then proof of fraud… part of this reasoning is not even written, but understatement that anyone understand, and that you repeat.
and a key factor is cognitive dissonance… despite the huge corpus of data, it is always assumed extraordinary, while it is simply one even in a long chain of coherent events.
note how you ignore the corpus I talk about. you ignore the problem.
challenge each of the thousands papers, the published one, the rejected without good reason, the great researchers result…
ignore the negative which give no serious explanation … a plane that crash prove nothing against plane that fly… it is a sophism … with that reasoning there will be no planes, no transistors, no lamp.
If you can challenge honestly all but one, with evidence of artifacts, then LENR is not replicated.
Critics are far from that… they don’t even have a theory that works about their artifacts… CCS is laughable in most cases, at worst it can be an hypothesis in the weakest experiments.
All questions have been addressed, as explain Hagestein (like with stirring, isothermal setup).
LENR don’t need Celani, MFMP or Defkalion to be real. It is proven since the beginning, and enough convincing for honest skeptics like Heinz Gerisher in 1991.
Miles result should have convinced everybody. NASA2008 with SPAWAR should too, ENEA too… at least it should have raised doubt… but nothing… that nothing is an evidence of a psychiatric phenomenon.
LENR is an evidence about Collective Delusion, about Groupthink…
see the description of Groupthink… you are among the “guardian of truth”.
We have seen the terror against dissenters… the asymmetry of evidences requirements…
It is so blatant, so clear… as Benabou cite, “color blind in a sea of red flags” (the quote is not from him… about financial bubble)…
That Defkalion was wrong in it’s test have no importance on the question whether LENR is real.
It is however important for the group delusion to end on our planet.
Only a success in Wall-Street Journal can force the conspiracy theorist to admit LENr is real.
I’m fed-up with planet-wide delusion. I want’ Nature be under chapter 11. I wan’t pursuit against APS. They have to pay. they have to have “flesh in the game”, or to stop playing with the official truth.
is there anyone intelligent enough here to see how absurd is to apply free space physics to deny LENR in a lattice ? to claim that difficulties to replicated, can cancel the successes ? to conclude that something is pseudo science in 20 days after 2 years of experiments ? how pathologic is to reject a paper that can change the physics, because there is no room ?
is there anyone aware that it is crazy ? no need of a degree in physics.
Crash planes and flying ones…bad news: there are no flying planes with Lenr motors…
You better review story 1991 till today and what do you have?
AlainCo,
“hypercritical method, muddying the water , using all sophism you can imagine, like strawman, ad hominem critics,
appeal to authority, appeal to morality, accusation of conspiracy, accusation of instruments dysfunction,
imagining unproven artifacts, never proving the least fact, using any doubt as affirmation of fraud,
inside a cognitive dissonance where LENR is extraordinary
yet never daring to say it is unreal because it is absurd”
Nice try. A pity a skeptic could obviously say the same of a believer, expecially the part related to “never proving the least fact” or “imagining unproven artifacts” (where the artifacts are named E-Cat, Hyperion,…)
And a true pity Hyperion does not work, and Gamberale flight away from it (and Melis and Pedrocchi followed).
A pity indeed: it was the first machine that went outside the laboratory of his “inventor”…wait, there is another one: do you remember Celani’s costantana? You said you are on science since age of 4. Surely you can say something about the public data you could see on MFMP site: can you calculate if they confirm an excess of heat? Do you need an abacus? Or are you satisfied with the “differential method” Celani used to claim those excess? Guess what? He himself started saying costantana results were not “very satisfactory” even for the ICCF people..What a pity! And how about Toyota (to name one for all)? Any news on a LENR car or motorbike or even computer? No? Neither a small calculator? What a pity!!
Do you want me to tell you? Hyperion DOES NOT WORK as they told you, Hyperion is no more than a boiler – and even a not so good one: when you run it, flow decrease. Next time, keep your flowmeter with you – by the way, if it is so difficult, simply put out the tube of output and have a look at what comes out from it: it will be no more dangerous than look at the steam from an iron. You will discover the fraud by yourself – oh wait: you can not! Defkalion Greek will not let you extract the tube from where they buried it – you know, it is not possible: the whole testing plan would crash!
But you can always count on F&P, which has been “replicated” everywhere (less than in official science, but who cares? It is official science that speaks of “conspiracy”, not the reverse, is not it?) Piantelli, Brillouin and even E-Cat (as Rossi – till now- has been smart enough to avoid any skeptic put hands on his boiler). Really a pity the “all sophism you can imagine” have had this strange side effect to make LENR not work at all in the real word.
Come on, AlainCo, not even a blender? Not even a toaster? Not even a dry cell on the market, for people to buy in a shopping center? After around a quarter of a century, you shoudl really expect at least one of the above. At least from Toyota; or from ENEA; or from NASA; or from Siemens, at least.
How about Siemens, AlainCo? Do you remember? A coule of years ago, they were assured to be partner of Rossi…wait who said that? Ah…supporter of Rossi – never mind, you know, that is not science at all…Wait, and who spoke of infinite cop? Oh, that was Rossi? Ok, that MUST be science…
You know? You’re amazing: “instruments dysfunction” that is what Defkalion Greek has been reported to have said about the strange values of the flowmeter (the “thirdy part one” JCM spoke of) not corresponding to what everyone could saw in that “long run demo”. By the way, Mats, do you ever sweat?
“Appeal to authority” well, after Celani (among first, but even you) spoke of ENEA, NASA and (you frogot, but I can help you here) CERN, Mitsubishi -Toyota,INFN, MIT, University of Uppsala, University of Bologna, I am still wondering about the “appeal to” which “authority” that could compensate those before…By the way,speaking of “appeal to authority”, any news about this?
“never daring to say it is unreal because it is absurd” Do you whant me to tell you? “LENR is unreal” is TOO KIND.
(This comment was updated with links on October 7).
@matt
my comments were quite long, with many links… yesterday I put them with only one comment per message… only the first passed.
anyway all is said before…
The evidence of replication of NASA/Fralick89 by Uni tsinghua+Infinicon 2005, Biberian2007, NASA GRC 2009, Fralick 2012 (reported by biberian about ICCF18). That is much more clear than electrolysis.
I detail the story there http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?426-NASA-GRC-Gas-permeation-amp-Mills-cell-experiments . Normally you can see that NASA still support LENR as real
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm , but oops: government shutdown. The slides explain works by NASA GRC on LENR until 2008
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf . the initial research of Fralick&al http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGCresultsofa.pdf was kept in a drawer for nearly a decade, but then replicated by a Chinese Team partnered with Infinicon http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006LiuB-ExessHeat.pdf in 2005 then by Biberian http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPexcessheatc.pdf in 2007. they finally replicated it in 2009. Finally Biberian report a meeting with Fralick where he report a new replication in 2012.
The answer of Gary Taubes
the evidence of tritium, with BARC, Amoco funded research, with Bockris, and many other that Ed Storms gathered in a mail I give in the forum. without anydoubt, since tritium contamination is easier to control, and there are few in the environment. I’ve made a thread on it there http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1023-Tritium-is-the-best-proof-of-LENR . there is reference to an EPRI report http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf#page=265 done with top tritium experts at Princeton PPL. Another is done in Amoco http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf , in a garage-style, but with multiply by 3 of tritium. BARC director made an inaugural talk http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf#page=3 where tritium finding is discussed. This report http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Sankaranarinvestigatb.pdf shows evidence of tritium creation, but also consumption. the author was honest enough to retract about previously claimed heat production. There is a paper from Univ Utah http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf, showing 50 to 180 more tritium, and none more in the electrolythe.
Krivits reports many tritium finding there : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/Selected-LENR-Research-Papers.shtml . Jed give references in that wikipedia article http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html . and finally Ed Storms give a long bibliography : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg83105.html
Gary Taubes, king of LENR skeptics solved the inconvenient evidences of tritium by claiming all was frauds.
Recently the ENEA conference to EU officials, presented work of ENEA with SRI and NRL, which details the last identified condition identified to trigger LENR in PdD electrolysis… http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/documenti/eventi/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect/2-vittorio-violante-pdf … it is an evolution of presentation done for ICCF15 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVevolutiona.pdf … and ICCF18 presentation is an update https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1
The He4/heat correlation, measured by Miles, and latest just detected (on/off) by ENEA in Report41 Deninno… which was rejected without reading by Science because “no room”, and by 40 more journals with similar stupid excuses…
Miles work can be surveyed in that article http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatioa.pdf, and jed rothwell allow to understand better the work of Miles, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf . There is probably better articles.
ENEA Report 41 (DeNinno) “commedia del Arte” is described in that thread http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?404-Report-41-DeNinno-by-ENEA-and-rejection . The report http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf , was pushed by Carlo Rubbia, a Nobelized. Science answered with that letter http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf . and about 40 others with bad excuses, and absurds remarks
On bad excuse is sometime that LENR, and especially F&P have never been replicated exactly. but even F&P experiment was replicated exactly by Longchamp, of CEA (see the story http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?419-Calorimetry-quality-comparison-by-Miles and the paper http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf ).
You can also see the diference of quality with the sabotages done to prove (which is moreover not possible according to logic) that LENR does not exist : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf
add to that that the critics against LENR are sign of incompetence in physics and science (yes incompetence, no excuse) :
– using free space physics inside a lattice, not thinking about weak interaction or collective behaviors, or screening, … ( read http://egooutpeters.blogspot.fr/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html )
– saying that if there is no theory it cannot exist (read Non-Aristotelian philosophy)
– saying that if it is not easily reproducible it does not exist ( see http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/ee171/Winter06/notes/transistor.pdf )
all that is a shock for someone with basic knowledge in semiconductors quantum physics, and basically in history of science…
The hardest excuses to dismiss are the crazy hypercritical conspiracy theory of constant shift, which you can ruleout both because not all results are isoperibolic calorimetry (talk of He4/heat, of Tritium, with CCS, of McKubre isothermal calorimetry http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?402-Experiments-McKubre-SRI-P13-P14&highlight=isothermal , or gas permeation), and they are so various, and success is correlated to loading, heat, crystallography, current density, and not to metrology parameters. moreover there are huge (up to +250% heat production https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36847/LessonsColdFusionArchivesPresentation.pdf?sequence=1#page=8 )…
today most critics I hear are based on ignorance and absolute incompetence in physics, that when shown by physicists I put on dogmatism, stockholm syndrome (mutual assured delusion as benabou name it) and motivated reasoning.
Here the critics are more educated, avoid to talk of theory, and they abandoned criticizing the science because it is too sloppy.
they use the classic divide and conquer method of hypercritical method (http://wikipedia.qwika.com/fr2en/M%C3%A9thode_hypercritique) , muddying the water , using all sophism you can imagine, like strawman, ad hominem critics, appeal to authority, appeal to morality, accusation of conspiracy, accusation of instruments dysfunction, imagining unproven artifacts, never proving the least fact, using any doubt as affirmation of fraud, inside a cognitive dissonance where LENR is extraordinary yet never daring to say it is unreal because it is absurd… one evidence by one evidence, carefully avoiding to connect the dots, because if you do you realize that all is more improbable than a 9/11 conspiracy theory…
connect the dots…
on each side…
the evidence of LENR…
the evidence of irrationality against LENR…
I’m engineer, I fall in love with science when 4, and what i discovered recently hurts me deep.
I just added one example on lenr-forum about academic irrational hate of change… see: http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1499-Beside-scientific-bullying-against-LENR
Forget the question if LENR is real, and just question the procedure, the Scientific method, the ethic :
As the 3 Italians MPs say, LENR was said pathological science in 20 days, even before the experimental sabotage done in few weeks… how can you trust a community who rule out 2 year of work without evidence in 20 days just because it’s challenging their mental shortcuts, not even their theory (LENR cannot be excluded by QM…it is only unusual).
How can you trust a journal (Nature) that when receiving evidence of errors in a key paper (the sabotage of Caltech http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?799-How-Nature-refused-to-re-examine-the-1989-CalTech-experiment ) and a fraud (The sabotage of MIT http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?14-History-of-MIT-F-amp-P-non-replication-fraud-denouncby-E-Mallove ), don’t update the paper… which mater dump a paper (Oriani, see http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?374-Nature-policy-on-CF-critic-Oriani-s-paper-dumped-despite-positive-Peer-review) which is accepted by the peer-review? that (Science) when receiving a paper by an institution like ENEA, proving LENR was real just says “sorry no room”? or simply refuse to consider it (Nature and 40 others)…
and in fact as I seen, it is classic… it is not exceptional, even a rule (see http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/nassim-nicholas-taleb-and-cold-fusion_5.html )…
Of course some scientists save the Science, but it takes sometime centuries (eg: Semmelweis and predecessors ) to correct the evil.
Maybe is it why, as Taleb and Kuhn explain, history is rewritten, by the losers, the one who rejected the evidences for decades.
nearly all my message are moderated, so guess what are the pile of evidences … find it yourself. I’ve done already some preparation…
Alain,
This is strange — I haven’t moderated any of your comments. And I can see no comments from you waiting for approval in the WordPress dashboard.
What comments have you made that you think are moderated?
C’mon Matt’s. You know as well as I do that the Dennis craven display was a gimmick, nothing else. He admitted that it was not meant to prove anything just ‘stir interest’. It could so easily be faked. Why not an oil bath? Why not switch ball positions during the demo. If he had the real thing he wouldnt need to stir interest.
If he could so easily reproduce LENR then why doesn’t he, instead of resorting to party tricks?
“Wishing something is so doesn’t make it so”
It is only in your dream, in your blindness, that LENR was not replicated.
It was replicated many times, read.
stop repeating the lies you heard from liars who just refuse to admit they were wrong, incompetent, dishonest and manipulated.
At least Heiz Gerisher admit the reality…
the problem is since LENr is assumed impossible, any evidence is assumed a fraud, an artifact, and don’t need any consideration.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
“”It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann. . . . Putting the ‘Cold Fusion’ issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible.” [7]”
with that way too think… of course there is no evidence. no replication.
because there is no evidence and if there is anyway, you can conclude that there is none. point.
It is only in your dream that what you call “replic” is a scientific replic. With all the “replc” you claim, F&P should have received the Nobel an age ago, and cold fusion should be a strong claim of mainstream science. Guess what? No cold fusion machines are running in Japan, so better you go back in time and start repeating same lie: “Arata was right”. A pity you can count only on claims and paper, which are no more than written claims, as LENR machines in these days (more than 20 years after F&P) are all under NDA, in secret R&D or “soon (but not already) ready” since around three years…
Time to wake up, dreamer.
@Matt can you find my posts (3 or 4)… I agree it was long with many links…
there is:
Longchampt replication of F&P in CEA grenoble…
the replication of Fralick/NASA89 gas permeation experiments by tsinghu, biberian, nasa2008,fralick2012
Tritium evidences across the planet, bockris TexasAM, BARC, …
He4/Heat correlation by miles and ENEA
after you have the human evidence… Stefano Concezzi and Truchard of NI supporting LENR.
Robert Duncann convinced by Energetics technology.
Heinz gerisher convinced in 1991.
and beside the evidence of LENR being real, the evidence of pathologic behaviors of mainstream, like MIT fraud seen by Mallove, pathologic arguments as said in wiki article by Jed rothwell, the Orianis post-peer-review dumping, the report41 no-room answer, the bullying against bockris…
all that being classic if you look at past history before it is rewritten by the academics as Taleb and Kuhn explain.
You forgot to mention all the great success in the year 1989-90 to patent something F&P related from many Countries. Till some months later, when suddenly no one could be able to replicate anything, unless he was a believer…
Not very convincing perhaps:
http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=604
But could you maybe verify what is going on in Uppsala right now?
Are you speaking of this? It should be confirmed first, but sounds like a proof that Levi and Rossi(and might be others signers of the Report?) are truly “thirdy parts”. At least, in eating together…
Oops I forget the linke to the final report of miles in my previeux messages
Click to access MilesManomalousea.pdf
(are they moderated? many links inside).
If only for that, seems as if Gamberale forgot something more than a link: he forgot to tell about the private testing – no matters at all arised? That’s incredible. That he tried to make us believe it, I meant…
“to reproduce the Fleischmann and Pons effect (explaining why it is so difficult).”
Kidding? It is as simply as obtaining fusion from nickel and some electricity. Or you can always buy a couple of balls from Cravens, if you feel you need them…
Do you want me to translate this?
“Una differenza di 4-5°C in aria di quella sfera significherebbe una erogazione di potenza di circa 1 W. La stessa differenza di temperatura con la sfera immersa in palline di alluminio significa una potenza molto più alta: almeno 10W.
Se avesse lasciato la sfera in aria si sarebbe dovuta portare ad almeno 50°C, cosa misurabile al tatto senza strumenti. Il complicare la cosa con due palline in un bagno di palline di alluminio a 80°C per me dimostra la malafede dello sperimentatore.”