eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Defkalion Self-Leaks Catalyst

October 22, 2012

Hydrogen is not the only leak coming from Defkalion – maybe. When Eldering_G recovered Defkalion’s unredacted report from his cache, he did so because he noticed the company had changed the pdf to one with information blanked out. He was unaware at the time that they had also withdrawn another paper which recounted a March visit by Michael Nelson to the company. This document is marked ***Extremely Confidential*** Defkalion Proprietary Information

Once again, since they put it into the public arena – albeit briefly – I consider it fair game for your reading. An immediate question arises: Are we having our chain pulled? Can the company really be that careless or is this accident designed for a purpose?

To all commenters, I welcome your take on this as I have to admit to a certain head-scratching. My physics is rusty so I’m perfectly willing to listen to those more able than I to analyze what is here. I will, however, delete any analysis which simply mocks an individual or assertion. “Who do these morons think they are?” does not cut it.

Much of the stuff we’ve seen before, but the claim that Potassium is a catalyst is new to me. Reading between the lines, they seem to say that it changes the Ni powder in some way to enhance the reaction. I find it curious that they would include such a detail but at the same time also note that they claim at least one other secret ingredient to maintain the mystery.

It is one thing to advance a theory but I’m puzzled at the apparent matter-of-fact way they discuss the virtual neutron situation. In polarizing atomic Hydrogen, they say that the elongated electron orbit brings it close enough to the nucleus to make the ensemble look like a neutron for the order of 10E-17s and (if I read them correctly) this provides a window for overcoming the coulomb barrier. My gut reaction is to call nonsense or at the very least wonder why they would include such an assertion as though they knew it to be so, without undertaking extensive basic research. Is this a case of bullshit baffling brains or is it me being thick or unfair? [All are possible, of course].

I leave it to you.

Summary of Visit to Defkalion

[Thanks, Eldering_G]

 

Posted by on October 22, 2012. Filed under Defkalion,Drama,Hands-On,Hyperion,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

582 Responses to Defkalion Self-Leaks Catalyst

  1. Thicket

    October 25, 2012 at 2:17 am

    It’s far too rare, but sometimes a pseudoscience conman does get arrested.

    Excerpt.
    ———————
    Muller conned some 3,000 investors out of about five million Euros ($6.5m, £4m), the court said.

    He had invented a pseudo-scientific theory he called “global scaling”, which he said allowed him to use gravitational waves to prevent electronic smog, use novel methods of scanning to be applied in medicine, and transmit “information without any limits in quantity, quality or time”.

    The court said Muller convinced investors with his impressive, and mainly fictitious, CV which included advanced degrees in applied mathematics and physics from the University of Saint Petersburg and “the Vernadski Medal first grade for his scientific achievements”.

    Muller used his bogus theory to develop a wealth of products, from “wellness devices” which could allegedly protect the buyer from electronic smog to “vitality-generators” to improve one’s life force.
    ———————————-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20076791

    Of course, Muller’s gravitational wave scam is soooo much different than the genuine cold fusion devices developed by Rossi and Defkalion. /sarcasm

    • daniel maris

      October 25, 2012 at 9:05 am

      How many professors of physics at ancient seats of learning did Muller fool?

  2. Brad Arnold

    October 25, 2012 at 6:46 am

    This US Government contract ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf ) detailing a working LENR reactor also lists the same “secret” catalyst. BTW, it doesn’t show a frequency modulator (Q-wave).

    • RonB

      October 26, 2012 at 10:47 pm

      Brad,
      It’s just amazing how something like this could be done so long ago and nothing come of it.

  3. spacegoat

    October 25, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Interesting. I suppose, in their usual fashion, the LENR denier crowd will denigrate this report and its authors, or they will conclude, since there is no apparent follow-up since 1994, then the science must be junk.

    Report dated March 24,1994.
    SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
    Department of the Air Force
    Air Force Material Command (ASC)
    Wright Laboratory (WL/POKA)
    Wright-Patterson. AFB, OH 45433-7607

    Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with
    potassium carbonate on a nickel surface. The nickel surface consisted of 500 feet of
    0.0625 inch diameter tubing wrapped in a coil. The coil was inserted into a pressure
    vessel containing a light water solution of potassium carbonate. The tubing and solution
    were heated to a steady state temperature of 249°C using an FR heater. Hydrogen at
    1100 psig was applied to the inside of the tubing. After the application of hydrogen, a
    32°C increase in temperature of the cell was measured which corresponds to 25 watts
    of heat. Heat production under these conditions is predicted by the theory of Mills where
    a new species of hydrogen is produced that has a lower energy state then normal
    hydrogen. ESCA analyses, done independently by Lehigh University, have found the
    predicted 55 eV signature of this new species of hydrogen.

    • daniel maris

      October 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm

      General Zaroff’s conversion seemed short lived. He didn’t even bother to read the words of the Book of Amoco.

      • spacegoat

        October 25, 2012 at 2:09 pm

        I would have thought someone of the calibre of the General would found his own religion rather than crashing into ours. He can already incorporate human sacrifice (the hunt), which is a turn-on for his co-religionists and a control feature over his flock.

        • GreenWin

          October 25, 2012 at 4:47 pm

          Not speaking out of school but, the Generale’s “flock” was eaten by wolves several years ago. Despots do not Good Shepherds make.

    • RonB

      October 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm

      Personally I thought that the report from Dr. Storms was pretty convincing but Jami really rained on that parade because Storms used arbitrary units in his graphs. Nothing like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

      If you’ve not read the posting Brian Josephson left regarding comments made by maryugo, it’s worth the time. Brian is so articulate.

      • Bigwilly

        October 25, 2012 at 3:42 pm

        Hey Ron,

        Do you have link to this articulate gentleman’s comments?

        Thanks
        BW

        • RonB

          October 25, 2012 at 3:56 pm

          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf

          I’ve not seen this posted in the journals yet.

          • Quax

            October 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm

            Certainly one of the better LENR papers.

        • Al Potenza

          October 25, 2012 at 4:43 pm

          I think the Josephson remarks RonB is referring to are here:

          http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/science_and_the_media/media_outlets_consider_cold_fusion_and_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

          Josephson articulate? Maybe. Has he written nonsense in support of the validity of psychic powers such as telepathy and telekinesis and that most ridiculous idea of all, homeopathy? For sure. And he was invited to Rossi’s dog and pony show of October 28,2011 and refused to go. If I read his comments in the Physics Today thread correctly, he no longer trusts Rossi either.

          His main argument about maryyugo is that he attended meetings and demos about LENR and he says maryyugo (and another poster he dislikes) have not. I wonder how he knows that.

          • RonB

            October 25, 2012 at 4:51 pm

            Has he written nonsense

            You mean it doesn’t make sense to you? Kind of like LENR, right?

            Hopefully the attention will shift from our I-friends to just basic LENR soon. I for one am tired of chasing cats.

          • Al Potenza

            October 25, 2012 at 5:19 pm

            @RonB

            All of the so-called research that I have seen into telekinesis, telepathy, mediumship, and homeopathy either yields negative results or is bullsh*t. That’s outside the scope of this forum so I won’t discuss it here.

            The issue raised by maryyugo and the other poster Josephson didn’t like is that he, Josephson, believes and supports that bullsh*t vehemently. That makes him non-credible in LENR and other areas in which he admits he offers scholarly opinions without ever having done any research.

            There’s nothing magic about getting a Nobel prize. It means you did something very noteworthy and valuable. Once. It doesn’t mean you know anything about anything else. Josephson is an obvious “woowoo”.

            He can’t even disavow Rossi and Defkalion and their obvious lies.

            Please get this through your head. Most skeptics don’t believe LENR is nonsense. They believe it is very unlikely to be true based on what is known about that physics. But it’s not necessarily IMPOSSIBLE.

            But proof of LENR has to be very good. And so far, nobody has shown convincing evidence for it. All that exists out there seems to be divided between very small effects that could be measurement errors and grandiose claims that are almost certainly investment scams. As to the small claims, most skeptics don’t dismiss the possibilities out of hand. What they say is that the evidence is lousy. Improve it and we’ll see.

      • Jami

        October 25, 2012 at 4:54 pm

        “Nothing like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

        You really seem to think that Storms and Scanlan did something significant here and avoiding arbitrary units would be nothing but cosmetics on a girl which is a stunning beauty anyway.

        Look at section “III.4 Radon” please. They say:

        “When a fan was used to circulate air around the GM and apparatus, the count rate increased and then decreased when the fan is turned off. This change is attributed to radon in the air that is made available to the surface, where it deposits. This extra count rate was not present in the absence of the fan.”

        How does that, in your opinion, reflect on a) the other conclusions they draw and b) the approximate dimensions their arbitrary units would be in when properly translated to non-arbitrary units for gamma and/or beta radiation?

        “I’ve not seen this posted in the journals yet.”

        And you never will. Not in this form.

        • RonB

          October 25, 2012 at 5:30 pm

          Jami,
          I can agree with all that you say. I think it would have been good to have a calibrated source to start with. I probably would have figured a way to get around any kind of ambient air getting into the mix and not make assumptions on what might have been going on.

          The arbitrary units is as I explained in “older posts”. They had a control setup (sans the hydrogen) and it showed nothing beyond background.
          What they did with averaging the samples is (in my mind) a valid way to go about it.

          Isn’t anything in the report of use to you?
          As flawed as the report might be, I think the point that emissions are being detected during this very trivial operation is significant.

          • Quax

            October 25, 2012 at 6:12 pm

            Jami is of course right about his criticism and this is one of the better papers.

            I.e. it is just good enough to hint at the possibility that there really may be something going on.

          • Jami

            October 25, 2012 at 6:22 pm

            “As flawed as the report might be, I think the point that emissions are being detected during this very trivial operation is significant.”

            It isn’t. Practically everything is radioactive. If you take a sufficiently sensitive detector you can measure your own heart rate from the readings when you place it in front of your chest. Put a lead shield between your chest and the detector and it’ll drop. Take it away and it’ll go up again. Nothing much may be concluded from that. If I put out a paper (without even hinting at the dimension of the measurement) showing these results, nobody would take notice. If, in addition to that, I’d write that I suspect my heart to be driven by a fission reactor, it’ll probably draw a few laughs – but it won’t ever be published in a serious journal. If I’d furthermore speculate about higher readings when I operate an electrically driven fan being caused by Radon deposition, I’d be a LENR researcher.

    • GreenWin

      October 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      Goat, these experiments were likely carried out by confused AF scientists making errors in calorimetry, and ambient temp increase. If there were a “new species” of hydrogen in the real world, it would already be on experts’ radar. It isn’t, so it does not exist. Simple.

      IGZ-2013 Know It All!

      • Al Potenza

        October 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm

        Spot temperature measurements are not, for reasons way beyond the possibility of your meager intellectual powers to understand, calorimetry.

        • GreenWin

          October 25, 2012 at 5:46 pm

          Thanks Al. The breadth of your gullibility makes the snake oil you sell attractive.

          IGZ-2013 Al Swims the Abyss!

    • Paul Fernhout

      October 28, 2012 at 1:30 am

      Great comment. I first learned about that 1994 Air Force report mentioning Potassium Carbonate on ecatnews from a post by “Sojourner Soo” a year ago. I referenced that ecatnews post back in January in this post by me on another site:
      http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2621746&cid=38708322

      It would not suprise me if the “catalyst” also has something to do with electric fields, as well though.

      My post there was mainly about reasons Rossi should open source his invention if it works. It’s only a matter of time before the “catalyst” is reverse-engineered. There are already a couple of open source projects in that direction.

      Why fill the world with more artificial scarcity to prop up an outdated economic paradigm? Search also on: “Another Call For Abolishing Patents, This One From the St. Louis Fed”.

      As I mention at that link (about a note I sent to Rossi via his journal site almost two years ago): “The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioecenomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore. …”

  4. Al Potenza

    October 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Speaking of Josephson, here is what he wrote about Krivit and Rossi. Guess whose side he’s on?

    “Written by Brian Josephson, 16 October 2012 12:02

    “I get why Steven B. Krivit doesn’t like Andrea Rossi”. Perhaps it is the claims made by Rossi that were based on false results. Certain obvious false claims do not lend one to have confidence in the researcher. We finally have a reporter in Mr. Krivit who is not swayed by false claims. We need more reporters willing to do in-depth research, say the truth, and let you make your own decisions. Mr. Krivit does not have a horse in this race so I trust him more than any other source on the subject. If you are willing to read all of the information regarding Rossi’s research you would likely come to the same conclusion. LENR is and has been relegated to the myth category partially on many misleading and false claims. Reducing the BS might allow legitimate research to be taken seriously.”

    • Al Potenza

      October 25, 2012 at 5:13 pm

      My mistake. I gave Josephson too much credit! The layout of credits for the posts in that response section is misleading. Someone else wrote that. Josephson actually wrote something much less intelligent and coherent above it. Disappointing. Here is Josephson’s actual comment:

      “@Becktemba Kazemde: I suspect that like me you got confused by the layout of the comments into thinking the highly critical remarks by maryyugo were written by Krivit, who actually wrote the comment above hers; your remarks are well directed towards her. When I discovered my error I asked the moderators not to post my remarks directed at Krivit, and the following is a replacement. maryyugo claims I am not a credible source, but offers no supportive evidence for this, her arguments typically depending on assertions that _all_ experiments of a given kind are flawed in some unspecified way. As regards cold fusion experiments, one must assume that she considers herself a better judge than the expert referees who have approved papers on the subject for reputable journals. Dan Drasin’s article ‘Zen and the Art of Debunkery’ (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html) provides what would seem to be appropriate comment here: “Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair. … Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as “ridiculous” or “trivial” in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.” I have given a detailed analysis of the phenomenon of Pathological Disbelief in my St. Petersburg Scientific Forum lecture, which people may wish to view at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1329068.”

      Seems he’s rambling and bumbling about debunkers. I suppose he likes bunk.

      • RonB

        October 25, 2012 at 5:34 pm

        Al,
        I can so relate to that comment about the layout of the postings on that site.
        It’s just so odd that they would have that white space below the comment before the name of the poster but then leave no white space before the next comment. *rolling eyes* – Some people just don’t get “good user interface”.

    • Quax

      October 25, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      Al, I am very much with Josephson on this. Legitimate LENR research is tarnished due to Rossi’s antics.

      And although I am not convinced in the reality of LENR effects as most believers here, I very much think a concerted research effort is justified to establish exactly what kind of surface and/or absorption processes are taking place in the various experimental set-ups.

      • Al Potenza

        October 25, 2012 at 5:27 pm

        Quax, unfortunately, that’s NOT what Josephson said. Recheck my posts above. The author attribution in the Physics Today blog is MISLEADING. It fooled me originally but I took a second look: the names appear well BELOW the posts, NOT ABOVE. The post which says that Rossi tarnishes LENR research is by someone named Ken Kirkham. Josephson’s post is above that one. And I quoted it in my italics above. So you can see how disorganized and weird the guy has become.

        • GreenWin

          October 25, 2012 at 5:38 pm

          No Al, I can see how you have been caught trying to pass off total bullsheit about your bud Kirvit – using the reputation of a Nobel Laureate.

          Al, YOU are the fraud here on ecatnews – now we all have proof of how disorganized and weird YOU have become. Even so, an excellent contestant for IGZ-2013!

          IGZ-2013 Al Caught Red Handed!

        • Quax

          October 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm

          Ah well, he is a theorist and entitled to his opinions as everybody else.

          Will always feel warm and fuzzy towards him as Josephson junctions are such a thing of beauty.

          • RonB

            October 25, 2012 at 7:18 pm

            Amen to that.
            I remember when I first read about that back in the day. For him to come up with that when he was in his early 30’s and all.
            I’m still in awe.

          • JNewman

            October 25, 2012 at 11:06 pm

            Ron, to be accurate about Josephson, he actually predicted the effect that bears his name when he was 22. By the time I was heavily involved with Josephson junction research in the 1970s, he was already a fixture on obscure UHF channels pontificating alongside of the Maharishi. He has taken an interesting path through life, that’s for sure.

    • GreenWin

      October 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm

      “In my work I have come across many cases of what I call Pathological Disbelief, for example with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion), where there is a complete disconnect between what is generally believed (‘fiasco of the century’) and the facts, namely that there is abundant experimental confirmation of the phenomenon.” Brian Josephson, July, 2012 Washington Times

      • Quax

        October 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm

        Abundant, yes. Abundant low quality confirmations, due to the field being side-lined and no top notch researchers touching it with a 10 foot pole.

        It has been a long going vicious cycle. The dubious “commercial” players don’t help.

        • GreenWin

          October 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm

          Quax, the fact you dismiss 4 Nobel Laureates who accept cold fusion experimental results – pretty much tarnishes your opinion.

          “A long vicious cycle?” You sound rather unhappy, Quax. Please consider joining the cast of Island of General Zarcofagus. You assuredly would win bigger than Al. 🙂

          • popeye

            October 25, 2012 at 7:16 pm

            GreenWin posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm:

            Quax, the fact you dismiss 4 Nobel Laureates who accept cold fusion experimental results – pretty much tarnishes your opinion.

            What 4 would those be? Josephson, yes, but unless you accept telepathy, dismissing him *increases* your credibility.

            Schwinger, ok maybe. I don’t recall him making any definitive statements, but he certainly accepted the possibility, and tried to explain it. He was kinda old by then, and no longer relevant to physics, but still.

            Rubbia? I doubt it. If he accepted the results he wouldn’t be working on thorium reactors.

            Ramsey? No. He insisted on kinder wording in the DOE report, but never accepted cold fusion claims.

            Anyone else?

            Now, following your logic, the fact you dismiss (at least) 5 Nobel laureates who explicitly reject the evidence for cold fusion, pretty much tarnishes your opinion. And I’ll give the names: Gell-Mann (who called it baloney), Weinberg, Glashow, Lederman, Seaborg.

          • GreenWin

            October 26, 2012 at 8:32 am

            Popee’s reading comprehension again spirals to the abyss: Quax wrote: “Abundant low quality confirmations, due to the field being side-lined and no top notch researchers touching it with a 10 foot pole.”

            five Nobel laureates – Josephson, Rubbia, Schwinger, Ramsey, and Robert Schrieffer. Quax/Popee would also say Howard Menlove (Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Stanford University, LANL) was not a “top notch researcher.”

            “Physicist Howard O. Menlove of Los Alamos National Lab reported last Wednesday that, in two separate types of experiments, he and his colleagues had seen the same amount of neutrons observed by Jones. It was the first confirmation of cold fusion by a U.S. government laboratory.” Los Angeles Times, May, 1989

            The sheer arrogance of the uncredentialed solipsists here is stunning.

          • popeye

            October 26, 2012 at 9:54 am

            GreenWin posted on October 26, 2012 at 8:32 am:

            Quax wrote: “Abundant low quality confirmations, due to the field being side-lined and no top notch researchers touching it with a 10 foot pole.”

            I was disagreeing with your claim that they accepted cold fusion results, but in Ramsey’s case, I haven’t seen evidence he’s touched them with a 10-ft pole. His sop in the ERAB preamble is at least 50 ft long. Rubbia came closer, but only briefly, and now ignores the field.

            Anyway, I disagree with Quax that the reason smart people steer clear of CF is because the field was side-lined. I think the field was side-lined because smart people steered clear, and that’s because they thought it had no merit.

            five Nobel laureates – Josephson, Rubbia, Schwinger, Ramsey, and Robert Schrieffer.

            I gave you Josephson and Schwinger, but only one of those adds credibility, and that only modestly. I’d like to see evidence the others accept cold fusion evidence in general.

            Ramsey insisted on softer wording in the ERAB summary to avoid absolute rejection of the possibility. But that’s a long way from expressing support, but maybe you have some better quotes.

            Rubbia was peripherally involved in some experiments on cold fusion, but again, I’ve not seen any general acceptance of the phenomenon, and his work and support for thorium fission kind of suggests the opposite.

            Schrieffer, as far as I’ve seen, said that the neutron results of Menlove and Jones were the most convincing results for cold fusion. The thing is that those results were not consistent with the P&F sorts of levels. They were claimed to be evidence of traditional D-D fusion, but at levels orders of magnitude too low to be useful to provide heat.

            And then of course, a year later, the same authors discovered the results were wrong, and Jones eventually conceded the evidence for neutrons was not compelling.

            Quax/Popee would also say Howard Menlove (Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Stanford University, LANL) was not a “top notch researcher.”
            “Physicist Howard O. Menlove of Los Alamos National Lab reported last Wednesday that, in two separate types of experiments, he and his colleagues had seen the same amount of neutrons observed by Jones. It was the first confirmation of cold fusion by a U.S. government laboratory.” Los Angeles Times, May, 1989

            Again, those results were orders of magnitude below the claims necessary for P&F type effects. And a year later in much better experiments, the results were proved wrong. So, that restores considerable credibility to Menlove. Here’s what Morrison said in 1992 about the more careful work done later: “the level of neutrons observed in 1989 and the level of bursts claimed in 1990, have been disproved by the same experimenters working with numerous cells tested for long periods of time in the Kamiokande detector under favourable conditions.” A few years later, even Jones conceded the neutron evidence was not compelling.

          • popeye

            October 26, 2012 at 10:01 am

            GreenWin posted on October 26, 2012 at 8:32 am:

            The sheer arrogance of the uncredentialed solipsists here is stunning.

            Actually I think the most stunning arrogance is from the True Believers, who have no background in science, simply dismissing the view of the vast majority of experts in nuclear and condensed matter physics, including many Nobel laureates, who find no merit in cold fusion. What is so obvious to you somehow escapes the brilliant minds of people who could really benefit from embracing it, if only it were real.

          • GreenWin

            October 26, 2012 at 6:07 pm

            The problem with engaging mechanistic intelligence is it has no capacity to feel or know emotive intelligence. Thus it is compromised in human communications. While Joshua Cude aka Popee retreats behind wafer thin technical loopholes, he refuses to engage at the primacy level of human consciousness. If he was able he would address the non-technical issues his bluster produces.

            Popee (foolishly) attempts to support Quax’s hysterically arrogant statement “…due to the [LENR] field being side-lined and no top notch researchers touching it with a 10 foot pole.”

            We have pointed to not four but five Nobel Laureates who have not only touched but engaged in cold fusion research with their fleshly minds. Quax’s statement is falsified by proof of only one “top notch researcher touching.” Popee agrees that would easily be Nobelist Brian Josephson. Case closed. Quax and Popee’s ridiculous display of arrogance – demonstrated.

            But Popee, being incapable of accepting his error, digs his hole deeper attempting to dissuade himself and his fans of his failings. He knows the question to be simple: is there even ONE “top notch researcher” on Earth who has touched cold fusion with a pole of ten feet or less?

            Brian Josephson is clearly a top notch scientist and researcher. He has supported CF research for nearly 23 years. Again, for folks who struggle with logic and scientific method; hypothesis, evidence hypothesis is wrong. End of discussion.

            One hopes the work in AI finds a proponent of emotive intelligence. Dr. Masaru Emoto’s work with water and consciousness would be a good start. Until such time as AI learns to comprehend its habitat on an emotive intelligence level – it will remain little more than a mechanical parlor trick.

          • popeye

            October 26, 2012 at 9:03 pm

            GreenWin posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:07 pm:

            Popee (foolishly) attempts to support Quax’s hysterically arrogant statement “…due to the [LENR] field being side-lined and no top notch researchers touching it with a 10 foot pole.”

            Nice try wiggling out of this. DSM would be proud.

            But I did not attempt to support Quax’s statement, with which I disagree. I can see how you misunderstood, since I was arguing against your rebuttal. But the world is not binary. I can disagree with Quax’s statement, and the general statement you used in your rebuttal. That statement, to remind you was: “the fact you dismiss 4 Nobel Laureates who accept cold fusion experimental results – pretty much tarnishes your opinion.”

            I never said I agreed with Quax’s statement, nor did my post imply it. I disagreed with your statement, and for all your wiggling, my two points stand:

            1) You were wrong when you said 4 Nobel laureates accept cold fusion results. At best it’s two, and one also accepts telepathy.

            2) Applying the logic of your statement to you, indicates that you consider your own opinions tarnished.

            Brian Josephson is clearly a top notch scientist and researcher.

            That’s far from clear. He got his Nobel prize for work done as a graduate student, when he had skeptical guidance. On his own, his lack of skepticism has led him to dabble in the paranormal, and to a career wholly unworthy of its brilliant beginning. And for that matter unworthy of his advanced degree.

          • GreenWin

            October 26, 2012 at 11:14 pm

            Until such time as AI (and popAI) learns to comprehend its habitat on an emotive intelligence level – it will remain little more than a mechanical parlor trick:

            “He [Josephson] got his Nobel prize for work done as a graduate student…” Popee

            As did Albert Einstein.

          • popeye

            October 26, 2012 at 11:30 pm

            GreenWin posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:14 pm:

            “He [Josephson] got his Nobel prize for work done as a graduate student…” Popee
            As did Albert Einstein.

            As did Mossbauer and de Broglie. That was not meant as a criticism by itself; in fact, it’s an amazing achievement. The point is that if it turns out to be one’s only significant achievement, it raises the suspicion that perhaps all the ingredients of a top-notch scientist are not there, and the guidance was essential. In Einstein’s case, of course, he went on to many other great things, and moreover, we know his story pretty well, and that he was not at the university, and worked independently on his miracle papers.

            In J’s case, healthy skepticism was clearly absent in the remainder of his career. Not only is he a solid cold fusion supporter, but also a Rossi supporter. He’ll likely never have to concede on CF, but there’s a reasonable chance his gullibility on Rossi will become obvious to all.

          • GreenWin

            October 27, 2012 at 5:47 am

            Sir Isaac Newton was a closet metaphysicist – secretly pursuing alchemy, spiritualism and telekinesis. Do we dismiss his “laws” outright? Do we denigrate Sir Isaac because he pursued in secrecy the metaphysical world, verboten by his own “grounded mainstream” brethren?

            Josephson may very well become one of the most visionary Nobelists ever decorated. Precisely because he does not subscribe to the tenants of mainstream. Because he does his own research and analysis regardless of his fellows’ “consensus.” Brian is far better now, than when instructed by skeptical guidance.

            Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Richard Feynman, National Science Teachers Association,1969, New York City.

          • popeye

            October 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm

            GreenWin posted on October 27, 2012 at 5:47 am:

            Sir Isaac Newton was a closet metaphysicist – secretly pursuing alchemy, spiritualism and telekinesis. Do we dismiss his “laws” outright? Do we denigrate Sir Isaac because he pursued in secrecy the metaphysical world, verboten by his own “grounded mainstream” brethren?

            You’ve got the comparison back-to-front.

            No one is suggesting the Josephson effect has no validity because of J’s subsequent paranormal leanings. And no one is suggesting we should accept Newton’s metaphysical beliefs because of the brilliance of his Principia. And certainly, because of Newton’s metaphysical leanings, his judgement on alchemy has been questioned. Likewise, because of J’s metaphysical leanings, his judgement on modern controversial science is questioned. If J did the penultimate cold fusion experiment that produced unequivocal evidence for the phenomenon, there would be no hesitation (I suspect) in giving him a second Nobel prize.

            Josephson may very well become one of the most visionary Nobelists ever decorated. Precisely because he does not subscribe to the tenants of mainstream.

            Tenants? Mainstream has apartments for rent, do they?

            “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Richard Feynman, National Science Teachers Association,1969, New York City.

            Feynmann was about as far from the metaphysical as they come; an outspoken atheist and active free-energy debunker. He would almost certainly have been on the ERAB panel, and been as ruthlessly critical as any of the others, but of course, we’ll never know.

  5. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    daniel maris posted on October 22, 2012 at 9:15 pm:

    Lying? Deluded? Incompetent? Which is it to be guys?

    Definitely incompetent, and possibly deluded. It’s like Storms is back in freshman physics where geiger tubes and lead slabs are used to estimate absorption coefficients. They see all sorts of artifacts too. The report would be hard to distinguish from an undergraduate lab report. Did his
    kids just buy him a geiger counter?

    The paper is more about some strange activation artifact than it is about cold fusion. And it should suggest that the methods he is using are prone to artifact, and therefore should make readers cautious about its claims. Unless you want to believe that he has discovered more than one major scientific revolution here, as he apparently does.

    No self-respecting physicist would submit something like this for public consumption. He seems to realize that when he says it’s a work in progress, but that’s no excuse. In the 30s, 40s, and 50s, physicists were busy identifying particles, and gamma rays from excited states, in the most excruciating detail. Just to pick an abstract from Phys Rev in 1950 at random that has something to do with his K-40 interpretation:

    “Targets made from the separated isotopes K39 and K41 were bombarded by 3.90-Mev deuterons, and protons from the nuclear reactions K39(d,p)K40 and K41(d,p)K42 were observed. The energy distribution of the protons emitted in each reaction was obtained by measuring the proton yield as a function of range. The ground state Q-value for K39(d,p)K40 was found to be 5.48±0.08 Mev, giving the mass difference K40-K39 = 1.00070±0.00007 mass units. Excited states of K40 were found at 0.81, 2.01, 2.56, 3.3, 3.7, 4.2, and 4.8 Mev. The ground state Q-value for K41(d,p)K42 was 5.12±0.10 Mev, giving the mass difference K42-K41 = 1.00109±0.00010 mass units. Excited states of K42 were found at 0.62, 1.18, 1.97, and 2.29 Mev.”

    And here in 2012 is Storms speculating blindly that K-40 is being excited by unknown radiation from his LENR sample, as determined with geiger counters and lead absorbers. A glance at a chart of the nuclides will tell you that K-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and its excited states have half-lives of nanoseconds or less. No way that can explain his 110 minute half-life.

    But the simplest checks on the wild speculation were not done. He thinks the K-40 in the window is producing radiation. So, did he take the window off and put it in front of the other detector? Did he put some paper in between to see if the radiation is gammas or betas?

    More importantly, and this applies to all the measurements, why on earth would he not do spectroscopy on the gamma rays? My guess is it would quickly reveal whatever artifact is present, and identify the radiation observed with the absorber in place. Gamma ray spectroscopy is taught in senior undergraduate physics, after all, and the hardware is not that hard to come by. Even the physicist wannabes on vortex are criticizing this noisy work because geiger tubes are subject to artifacts from things like stray rf.

    For 23 years we’ve been hearing that even when the heat is palpable, there is usually negligible radiation in cold fusion. None in Rossi’s case, even when they drilled holes in the lead. The odd cases where it is claimed are (like Storms’ results) very weak indeed, and are observed when the heat is palpable. Piantelli claims radiation just above background for his nickel rods that give off several tens of watts. But now Storms claims that with a tiny sample, and reaction rates far below detection for heat, he too gets radiation just above background. Seems like a huge contradiction to me.

    The data are extremely noisy, and reported in arbitrary units. Why not simply count the pulses, unless he’s trying to obscure something? And something doesn’t make sense to me. The samples appear to correspond to 1 minute duration, and he says the background was 60 counts/minute. So that means the statistical fluctuation should be about 8 c/m for about 12%. And yet, in the figures where he measures only background, the fluctuations are closer to 50% corresponding to count rates of about 4 c/m. Moreover, if the background is 60, in some figures he gets about 5 times that, which should correspond to 300 c/m, with fluctuation of 17, but he is observing fluctuations as high as background (about 60). Why does he use such a short sample time anyway. He could greatly reduce the noise by sampling for 10 minutes, and he doesn’t need such high time resolution.

    Storms says it only worked in a few cases of many. How many? 100? 1000? It matters, because the more scarce the effect, the more likely it might be attributed to a rare artifact or something.

    To summarize, the experiment is noisy, claims levels of radiation not consistent with 23 years of cold fusion claims, exhibits an unexplained source of counts that is *not* the LENR source, does not attempt to identify the nature of the radiation, and is therefore a joke.

    And one last thing: Storms writes that Focardi et al identified a gamma at 661 keV in NiH experiments, and this was corrected to 774 keV by Takahashi. I didn’t look up the claims, but is there no one in this field that can measure a gamma ray with any confidence? It’s sad.

    • Quax

      October 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      “It’s sad.”

      Yes it is. Because based on my perusing the LENR “literature” this is indeed one of the better papers.

    • JNewman

      October 25, 2012 at 6:33 pm

      Hey Popeye, nobody around here but you answers technically-oriented questions and I’ve been asking the same one for months: what exactly is the signature phenomenology of LENR/cold fusion? Proponents claim that the phenomenon has been amply verified in hundreds of experiments. Which phenomenon exactly? Apart from the vague notion of “anomalous heat”, what is the hallmark of LENR? Neutrons? Gammas? Transmutation? Helium? All of the above? None of the above? Is there one phenomenon being claimed or a whole raft of things that go on in these systems? I have never seen anyone address this point, which strikes me as significant. How can people be chasing theories when there isn’t even a well-defined phenomenon?

      • RonB

        October 25, 2012 at 6:48 pm

        JN,
        Not being from academia I can only provide a perspective from industry.
        When we are researching the cause of some odd artifact we usually come up with a clue list and then sort it according to some arbitrary criteria. It seems that the scientific community doesn’t operate that way and maybe because some people want the credit so they don’t share information or that they make claims on a one-up scenario. Honestly this whole LENR affair is my first foray into following any kind of research.
        I’m learning lots and some of it is quite alarming.

      • popeye

        October 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm

        Most people in the field would claim excess heat is the signature. The only claims of nuclear reaction products commensurate with the claimed heat are of helium (which happens to exist in the background at about the same level). There are many other claims of nuclear reaction products, but at levels far too low to explain the heat.

        The most definitive and discriminating measurements are potentially heat-helium correlation measurements. But the only refereed papers on this are from the mid 90s, and those were quite crude (as described by advocates), and were challenged in refereed literature. More recent attempts (used by Storms to calculate a ratio) are all conference proceedings, and even those are a decade old, and some have been challenged as having been manipulated. So, the most discriminating experiment remains controversial, and in a decade, no one has reported better attempts. They seem to prefer the experiments that leave more opportunity for artifacts to creep in.

      • MaxS

        October 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm

        Neutrons? Gammas? Transmutation? Helium?

        these cannot come from chemical reactions, so their presence would be the evidence of a nuclear process. Any possible error of measurement and background levels must be considered in an error analysis.
        Of course there must be a proper blind run and professional analysis of the reagents before and after the experiments. It must be shown clearly that the reagent (here: Nickel) before the experiments does not contain any of the above, or in significantly lower amounts.
        Transmutation is a nice example. When new elements are formed that have not been present initially, it would be clear evidence for a nuclear process.
        Then the energy measured must be in a magnitude to rule out chemical reactions, and there should be a theoretical model that correlates the energy yield with the model.
        Bluntly speaking, evidence from experimental data is required not empty claims.
        All of the above we have seen from serious scientists, but none of this we have seen ever from THE INVENTOR.
        In fact what he has provided showed just the opposite, never any credible experimental data.

    • Methusela

      October 25, 2012 at 6:39 pm

      Cude. Joshua Cude. Fed up of spamming Gibb’s article?

      Cue more vast swathes of sneering drivel.

    • RonB

      October 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm

      Popeye,
      Thank you for taking to the time to critique this report. I guess for me it seems inconceivable that a scientist would try to hide information to prove a point.
      I too wish he would have included the numbers of attempts and what exactly he tried in the process of getting this information. The devil is in the details.
      It sure does seem sad and I suppose in their defense they are in a hurry to get more people looking into this. In the examples you used above I wonder if there was less at stake than a new energy source that could change the world.
      That’s still no valid excuse for bad science.
      If Storms would have had more people and resources perhaps he could have done a better job.
      Lord knows that money is sometimes spent on less accepted ideas.

      Beginning in the 1990s, a focus of research has been the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular disease, with over $20 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health.[69]

  6. GreenWin

    October 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Ha! One knows when the skeptopaths are desperate – they call in Joshua Cude aka Popee. But the skeps are relegated to a cartoon copy, maryugo, and Al Pretenza as their premier spokespeople. The supporting cast is being quietly laid off.

    The fun is to watch skeps teeth gnashing and gyrations as inevitable commercialization of cold fusion progresses. While LENR science does not meet their pathological demands, the world is being prepped for the introduction of cold fusion. Grrr… that makes Al mad.

    IGZ-2013 Popee, Can You Swim?

    • RonB

      October 25, 2012 at 6:56 pm

      Mr. Green
      We need people like Popeye around. His input is invaluable and he should be thanked for the time he puts into this instead of belittled for it.
      The guy is obviously no dummy.
      When you sell him on an idea you know you have a good idea!

      • JNewman

        October 25, 2012 at 7:05 pm

        Mr. Green only likes the sound of his own voice.

        • GreenWin

          October 25, 2012 at 7:15 pm

          Actually JN, even should Popee’s complaints have merit, we all are aware this paper of Storms is a PRE-print. In the spirit of open-access this means the data and evidence are open to interpretation, discussion and correction.

          Attempts to dismiss the work outright are disingenuous as is the name Popeye.

          • JNewman

            October 25, 2012 at 7:26 pm

            Wow! A substantive comment! How uncharacteristic of you. You should try it more often.

          • GreenWin

            October 26, 2012 at 8:42 am

            All my comments of substantive. However they require substantive intellect to appreciate.

      • GreenWin

        October 25, 2012 at 7:06 pm

        Ron, I wasn’t aware Josh was “buying ideas.” Can you provide links to and details of ideas Josh has purchased in the past? And what is it that makes them “good” – in your opinion?

        • RonB

          October 25, 2012 at 7:14 pm

          lol
          Well.. not that he actually is purchasing anything but if you want to make a believer out of him you’re obviously going to have to go the extra mile.

          I do get the idea that by the time that he’s convinced the heavy lifting will be over.

          • Ivy Matt

            October 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm

            if you want to make a believer out of him

            Judging by his methods, it would surprise me if that was GreenWin’s motive.

            Either that, or he knows he’s not equipped for that purpose, so why bother?

    • Jami

      October 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm

      Yeah. I’ll admit I was shocked when the e-cats showed up in our local super market and my neighbor started heating his winter garden with it. Fortunately, there is the Joshua Cude hotline (0800-GETCUDE) where they told me it was all a dream. And guess what – it was.

  7. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    daniel maris posted on October 24, 2012 at 7:14 pm:

    Glad to receive you into the fold Brother Zaroff – Praise the Hydrino!
    You may like to take a look at some of the earliest holy texts from the pen of the Prophet Amoco:

    What on earth led you to that paper as a good example? I doubt it would crack the top 100 in most lists. And did you read it? Did you understand it?

    They claim 50 kJ over 2 months. That’s just enough energy to increase the temperature of a liter of water by 12 degreesC, and corresponds to an average excess power of about 9 mW. The input power was about 2.5 W, for a total input of about 13 MW, and an overall COP of 1.004. Wow.
    Now, the excess all comes in the second month, maybe over just a few weeks, but it’s still pretty lame.

    What about the calorimetry? They actually flow cooling water through the system, but don’t measure the temperature change. Instead, they monitor the temperature of a plate inside the cell, and adjust the input power to a resistor to maintain constant temperature. Then they assume the heat loss is constant at 2.486 W.

    You should be able to see the problem with that. There is a time constant involved between the input power and the temperature. And that time constant means the heat loss will not be perfectly constant, and the small deviations could easily account for a fraction of a per cent error in the calculations.

    Not only that, but the thermal properties of the electrode will be affected by the degree of hydrogen uptake, and so the relation between the temperature at one point in the cell and the heat transfer out of the cell will not be constant. CERN showed this with Piantelli’s experiment several years later.

    Finally, there is a deficit of energy of about 20 kJ for the 1st month, and they simply write it off as energy being stored. How? If they can have an unexplained deficit without crying nuclear, why not also an unexplained excess. Of course, the above two paragraphs can easily explain both.

    It must be nice to be able to just read claims in an abstract and be satisfied that cold fusion is proven. These experiments are almost always obscure and vague and marginal, and sloppy. I submit that if cold fusion is ever proven, the evidence will be simple enough that anyone will be able to understand it, just like anyone could see that the Wright’s could fly. They’ll show they can heat a 1000 L of water to boiling with a device that weighs less than a kg, and in one hour. Anyone with a hot tub will know that, even if it’s plugged into a 15 A line, that’s a breakthrough.

  8. GreenWin

    October 25, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Josh, please learn this word: B R E V I T Y.

    • RonB

      October 25, 2012 at 7:29 pm

      Mr. Green,
      IMHO Popeyes’s doing fine. I think that’s part of the problem with the reports on research done to date on LENR. People are being too brief and leaving out what might be valuable information.
      When I read Storms report all the points that both Al and popeye brought up are ones that crossed my mind as well. I did give the researcher the benefit of the doubt and still think that it’s a data point that in the future may be significant.

      • GreenWin

        October 26, 2012 at 6:55 am

        Ron, don’t be fooled by popee’s cosmetic bluster. He’s programmed to miscalculate data and obfuscate facts. It’s little more than an AI parlor trick. Josh has a professional pathoskep reputation across the net and knowledgeable people just let him rant – and then make a generous contribution to an OCD charity.

        • Ivy Matt

          October 26, 2012 at 1:10 pm

          Ron, don’t be fooled by ********’s cosmetic bluster. He’s programmed to miscalculate data and obfuscate facts. It’s little more than an AI parlor trick. ******** has a professional patho******** reputation across the net and knowledgeable people just let him rant – and then make a generous contribution to an OCD charity.

          Indeed.

          • GreenWin

            October 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm

            Ivy, excellent humor! The UNIverse is enthralling is it not?

  9. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    daniel maris posted on October 22, 2012 at 1:20 pm :

    If these technologies are genuine this is the way things should be from now on.

    What? More and more news without any evidence? That’s the way it’s been for 23 years. If these technologies are real, what we should see is some concrete proof.

  10. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    daniel maris posted on October 22, 2012 at 7:14 pm:

    I do feel like things are picking up tempo – which is what you would expect if we are talking about a genuine technology. We now have two popular science mags re-focussing on cold fusion.

    Neither of those articles are even close to the 1999 article in Wired or the 2009 60-minutes show in their support for LENR. And it always seems to believers that things are picking up tempo, whether they are or not. That’s what keeps them hooked.

  11. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Methusela posted on October 22, 2012 at 7:16 pm:

    The “appeal to authority” argument is valid when the authority in question is an expert on the subject (or close to the subject) in question. There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority.

    Unless of course the authority says cold fusion research has no merit. Then, the authority must be corrupt.

    • Methusela

      October 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm

      There is no authority intimately acquainted with the field that declares it impossible.

      Only those who are authorities in different fields declare LENR impossible, eh Josh?

      • popeye

        October 25, 2012 at 8:12 pm

        I don’t think anyone declares it impossible; but many consider the research without merit. The DOE panel became intimately familiar with it, and they said evidence of nuclear reactions was not conclusive.

        Douglas Morrison, before he died, made himself intimately familiar with the field, attended all the ICCF meetings, wrote regular newsletter style updates. He was clearly an authority, and he considered the probability of it being real to be about 10^-50.

        Kirk Shanahan is perhaps not a famous authority, but is intimately familiar with the field, has done experiments, and published papers, and he thinks cold fusion is not real.

        There are other negative publications, including one published this year on Pd-D and Pd-H, in which the excess heat is attributed to chemistry. (See Britz’s bibliography) . Also there are the folks at earthtech.org.

        Of course many authorities examined it carefully in the early days.

        Grants and papers continue to be submitted to respectable journals, and the authorities continue to reject them.

        You know, you don’t have to read all 3000 conference proceedings to express a respected opinion on the subject. Experts and authorities on nuclear and particle physics know that if it were real, evidence would not hide behind a bushel. And they make it their business to be aware of
        revolutionary discoveries, because you know, therein lies the fame and glory that all scientists crave. Me? I’d take the authoritative opinion of Gell-Mann after a quick glance at the field than that of Storms any day of the week.

        Of course, skeptics are not likely to take the time to get involved in the field. You could similarly say that there are no authorities on perpetual motion who claim it is impossible, because no authorities will waste their time becoming authorities on whacko fringe claims.

        Now, if you define “authoritative” as “believing in cold fusion”, then you have yourself a nice tautology. But many of the quoted authorities, like Bushnell, are anything but.

        • Ransompw

          October 26, 2012 at 12:04 am

          Popeye:

          You can’t examine anything carefully in six months. Truth is they didn’t study it carefully and still haven’t. And when I say they I am referring to those that claim as you that it is isn’t real.

          Almost everything written by you is about things that happened long ago which makes me suspect that you are old and likely explains why you cling to beliefs that clearly seem antiquated. There is no doubt that LENR is attracting new interest and for you to suggest it isn’t flies in the face of reality and makes me wonder about you.

          Personally, I think LENR is subtle and complicated and you lack the ability to understand it. When brighter physicists come along it will likely be exploited.

          • Jay2011

            October 26, 2012 at 1:28 am

            Hope no one minds if I throw my own two cents into the ring. I’ve never cared for appeal-to-authority arguments on either side of just about any debate. Always figured that if something was sufficiently controversial that “authorities” on both sides could disagree that I better look at the evidence for myself.

            Now in fairness to Popeye, he was just countering the tautological argument from the other side that only LENR advocates could be considered authorities on LENR. Personally I have not read a single sentence by Josephson that would suggest to me that he is an authority on LENR. Same goes for Bushnell. Duncan drew a conclusion after a brief trip to visit Energetics, but does that make him an authority? Now to argue for the other side, I could say the same for Gell Mann and several of Popeye’s other candidates.

            I agree that if LENR is real, it is almost certainly quite subtle, complex and non-intuitive, and it will probably take more horsepower than has been applied so far to figure it out. But it doesn’t take nearly that much horsepower to evaluate the calorimetry or radiation measurements or transmutation evidence offered up in LENR experiments. I agree that it would take more than six months to look at the few thousand papers on Rothwell’s website. Nobody, including probably all LENR researchers, has that much time. The job of Hagelstein, Chubb, McKubre and others for the 2004 DOE panel was to provide a filter function to steer the panel towards the best LENR examples. After looking at these results, about half of the panel agreed that there was suggestive evidence of interesting anomalous heating But even this half of the panel could not draw a clear conclusion that the effects must be due to a nuclear reaction.

            If this panel does not represent a sufficiently strong authority figure, than I suggest that such an authority does not exist and we (a big collective we not just limited to this tiny forum) are on our own to figure it out or to move on to something more promising. (And this doesn’t just hold for LENR).

            But the DOE panel was back in 2004. So fast forward to 2012. What has changed? Obviously we have Rossi’s claims, with no hard data to back them up. We have Miley and Ahern making some ear-catching remarks and then going silent. And we have Celani, who at least appears open, honest and sincere and might have something. But his calorimetry is lacking, even by his own admission, and it’s going to take some good follow-up measurements before we can conclude much.

            Am I missing something else regarding your conclusion that Popeye is old and outdated?

          • popeye

            October 26, 2012 at 1:44 am

            Ransompw posted on October 26, 2012 at 12:04 am:

            You can’t examine anything carefully in six months. Truth is they didn’t study it carefully and still haven’t. And when I say they I am referring to those that claim as you that it is isn’t real.

            Ah. So those who claim it’s not real didn’t study it carefully. That’s certainly a convenient mantra for a True Believer.

            But Duncan didn’t study it for 6 months. So we should ignore his support of the field? And Morrison studied it in detail for 12 years, and remained firmly in the skeptics camp.

            Of course, it’s ridiculous that you can’t study cold fusion enough in 6 months to give an expert opinion on it. In fact, if it takes 6 months to prove it’s real to a non-expert, it almost certainly isn’t.

            Look, it took less than 6 hours or maybe 6 minutes to prove high temperature superconductivity was real, and in a year they gave the discoverers the Nobel prize. It took 110 seconds to prove the Wrights could fly. It took a drink at a local bar for Townes to persuade von Neumann that lasers were possible.

            It means something to be an expert. If cold fusion researchers can’t prove to a panel of nuclear and condensed matter physicists that their evidence is compelling in a day, especially if they’ve had the best of the literature for a month, then it’s probably because it’s not. If it were not possible to evaluate such results in hours, then the whole peer-review system of granting and publishing would be useless. It’s not perfect of course, but it works pretty well, if you’re not a True Believer in a fringe science. Or can you find an example that has been suppressed like you claim cold fusion has been that was vindicated?

            Yes, it would take a long time to read all the LENR literature and to know the details of all the experiments and all the players. But that should never be necessary to evaluate the best of the claims represented by the best of the claimants. One good experiment is all it should take.

            Almost everything written by you is about things that happened long ago

            I just wrote an essay on Storms’ paper released 2 days ago. And much of what I’ve written has been about Rossi’s lame experiments. And also the recent experiments of Celani, Swartz, and Piantelli. Of course, most rational people are starting to doubt Rossi now, so they fall back to the more traditional LENR, and then bring up old stuff like Piantelli’s 1998 results, and Mitsi’s transmutations and whatnot, so what am I to do?

            It’s true that skeptical experts have not paid much attention lately, and few are on record recently dissing the subject. But unless you think the results up to 2004 were not compelling, and there is something dramatically improved since, their criticisms remain valid. If you go by the publication record, there is decidedly less published after 2004 than before. If you go by power or energy, and exclude Rossi, again, the 90s had much more impressive claims.

            And even now there still are negative experimental papers published. There’s one this year, and Shanahan has published since 2004. In Britz’s bibliography, there are close to 10 negative papers published. That’s not far from the number of positive experimental claims in peer-reviewed literature in the same period.

            It’s not necessary for an expert to be familiar with every perpetual motion claim, to be highly skeptical of them.

            There is no doubt that LENR is attracting new interest and for you to suggest it isn’t flies in the face of reality and makes me wonder about you.

            It is attracting new internet interest for sure, courtesy of Rossi. And that has excited some of the older players back into action in the hope of cashing in on it. But nearly all the people involved in the research have been believers for a long time. The exceptions to this are Duncan (2009) and possibly Bushnell and Zawodny from some time around 2007. Neither are particularly recent. The quality of the results, alas, has not improved.

            Personally, I think LENR is subtle and complicated …

            Well, that’s nice, but I doubt that the DOE is going to fund it based on the hunch of a lawyer.

            But the claims are not subtle. Piantelli’s Ni rod at (what?) 300C for a month without input power. How hard could that be to prove? Rossi’s 1000C core with a COP of 12. It shouldn’t take 6 months to prove that that is working.

            Nuclear reactions are by their nature *not* subtle. And when you can measure heat from them, they are dramatic. The subtle and complicated meme fits the fact that no one can prove it, but then it also fits the absence of an effect at all.

            When brighter physicists come along it will likely be exploited.

            One thing we agree on is that the field could use brighter physicists. I wonder why the bright physicists stay clear of the field, when there would be unmeasurable glory to be had, if it were real. And all the dullards and con-men get involved. Hmmm.

            But until much more compelling evidence that the effect is real, brighter physicists are not likely to improve the situation for the field.

            Anyway, do you have the courage to predict a time for this exploitation? In January you predicted commercial products in 2012. That lawyer’s hunch is pretty close to being proved wrong. If you give another date, I predict it’ll be wrong too.

          • Ransompw

            October 26, 2012 at 2:11 am

            Popeye:

            I agree with one of your comments. The whole peer review process of granting and publishing is useless. It existed in a time when communication had a cost and the dissemination of imformation came through authoritative bodies that as with all such bodies censored what they wanted. When information is free and its dessemination without cost the masses (Physicists) can make up there own minds.

            The days of journals are ending and so is the day of the Popeye’s of the world. As for funding, DOE has done such a pitiful job of guiding us to the future, I doubt the people involved in 2004 will have much say in the future. We can only allow incompetence such as yours to continue for so long.

          • popeye

            October 26, 2012 at 2:55 am

            Ransompw posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:11 am:

            The whole peer review process of granting and publishing is useless. It existed in a time when communication had a cost and the dissemination of imformation came through authoritative bodies that as with all such bodies censored what they wanted. When information is free and its dessemination without cost the masses (Physicists) can make up there own minds.

            You don’t have a clue. Yes, self-publishing on the internet will continue to grow, and will play a useful and important role. But, peer review will also continue to play an important role in publishing, and will continue to be essential for granting agencies.

            Peer-review in publishing is a quality filter, and actually improves the quality of papers, because they get sent back for revisions, and that makes reading far more efficient. Scientists will continue to read every issue of peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature, but only consult arXive literature when referred to it, or within specialties. And scientists will want their most significant work to appear in a place where tens of thousands of scientists will see it, rather than just a few. And of course, they will want the prestige that goes along with getting published in high impact journals. Scientific browsers want the benefit of knowing the papers have been vetted. That gives them more credibility. And granting agencies and hiring committees and promotion committees will continue to look at the quality of the journals a scientist publishes in. That’s not going to go away.

            As for grant proposals themselves, I can’t think of an alternative to peer-review for an agency to make their funding decisions. I know you want them to ask you who to fund, but it’s not gonna happen.

      • dsm

        October 26, 2012 at 1:14 am

        Methusela

        Is by any chance the ‘Josh’ you refer to Josh Knight ?

        Just wondering.

        DSM

        • Methusela

          October 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm

          Nope. Josh is Popeye is Kirk.

  12. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    GreenWin posted on October 24, 2012 at 6:21 pm:

    “…nothing left to loose.” I’m not sure this is what Kristoferson was thinking when he wrote the song JKW. You might study your command of English along with Al.

    Who’s Kristoferson? The song is by Kristofferson.

    But a better question is why you don’t correct the English of your comrades, starting with the excentric ransompw who can’t seem to spell “than” correctly.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 25, 2012 at 7:48 pm

      That’s my neighbor and I am presently listening to his songs, he’s one of the greatest men I have ever met, like bigger than others he is a scolar or something like that.

      His messages are deep and philisophical, he loves his john Deere, he was just mowing yesterday.

      He’s the greatest message deliverer I have ever listened to.

      • GreenWin

        October 25, 2012 at 8:01 pm

        Kris is a Rhodes Scholar, a unique, gifted individual with multiple talents.

      • JKW

        October 26, 2012 at 2:16 am

        That’s my neighbor and I am presently listening to his songs
        Through the window?
        Just kidding (as usual), I couldn’t help it

        • Dale G. Basgall

          October 26, 2012 at 6:37 am

          Pandora, and with 138 acres our side it’s quite a way’s.

    • GreenWin

      October 25, 2012 at 7:59 pm

      Popee, though a proper (given) name does qualify as a part of language (a specific noun as unique entity) – misspelling is not a grammatical or usage error. And I do correct usage amongst comrades – e.g. the unqualified inference of communist leanings by noun.

      You will make a fine contestant on IGZ-2013!

  13. Cool Fusion

    October 25, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    All articles on this topic from November 18, 2011 until now, gathered in a newsfeed on
    http://twitter.com/ecat_lenr
    and on
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cool-Fusion/186034904818468

    • Quax

      October 26, 2012 at 10:37 pm

      Nice job Cool Fusion. The Facebook timeline format really works well for this purpose.

  14. Bigwilly

    October 25, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Yeeehhhaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    Popeye is back. Good reading ahead.

    GreenWin take it easy pal. The e-cat can’t be stopped by well reasoned posts on a blog.

    IGZ is still on, the only question is when of course.

    BW

    • GreenWin

      October 26, 2012 at 6:38 am

      Willy, I’m surprised at your enthusiasm to be a popee sycophant. I thought you were better read.

      • Bigwilly

        October 26, 2012 at 3:15 pm

        Hey Sir,

        Thanks for the response. I know Popeye’s sentiments aren’t in line with ours. I too wish he would lend his support to Rossi and Defkalion but I am a total sucker for a good read.

        If I had the time I would read all 5,478 papers on Jed’s website then I would come back and shove LENR’s absolute proof right in popeye’s sailor face! (Politely of course). Alas I don’t have the time.

        Our best advocate at this time is Harry Perini and Daniel maris. They have to carry the torch.

        Keep reading!
        BW

  15. Frank

    October 25, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    After raising big expectations among his followers …

    Andrea Rossi
    October 23rd, 2012 at 9:09 PM
    Dear Drew:
    Important news are on their way.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    … Rossi gives them a cold shower once more:
    Andrea Rossi
    October 25th, 2012 at 2:24 PM
    Dear Adrian Monk:
    Next week we will have no particular communications to make. We are working very hard here, in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Where in USA will they do their hard work? At the balcony of Rossi’s condo?
    http://vk.com/id42579029#/id42579029?z=photo42579029_289935104%2Fwall42579029_1

    • JKW

      October 26, 2012 at 12:37 am

      I suspect they are more likely to be working hard in the dining room on the catalysts… 🙂

      • Robert Munson

        October 27, 2012 at 12:43 am

        No! I’ve got it the secret catalyst is liquid it’s called a hurricane.:)

    • MaxS

      October 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

      on the ´other website´ where some of us are banned to the excitement of the true Rossarians, there is a lively discussions what that communication would be. Seems to be something with the structure of Leornardo corp.
      My best guess is THE INVENTOR will go for IPO so they can collect the hard earned money of the true believers.

  16. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    daniel maris posted a week ago or so on October 19, 2012 at 1:13 am:

    I have said before and say again now that this is a crucial time, evidence for the reality of Rossi’s technology should be coming through pretty strongly about now…his credibility will fall away very quickly if there is nothing there by the New Year.

    Then upon being challenged for a soft deadline, wrote:

    2. I said if there were no positive signs coming through by end October I would be withdrawing my engaged interest.

    Are you aware that the internet remembers what you said.

    In April, you said: “We shall see whether I have deluded myself, come September!”

    In July, you said: “If Rossi is a scammer then he has put his head in the noose and the noose is tightening because he claims to have sold and be selling a 1MW machine. If we don’t have real evidence of that in the next couple of months, well he loses all credibility.”

    That doesn’t sound like waiting for nebulous positive signs. Is there real evidence? No. Has he lost your confidence? Evidently not.

    In August, you said: “But if he makes good on his promises of third party confirmation and certification having been achieved, we may have that evidence by then. Feel free to ask me on 1st October how he’s doing.”

    That doesn’t sound like just positive signs. Third party confirmation has not come, and it’s nearly the end of October.

    In September, you said: “Rossi can’t ride this wave forever. We are near the end of the road – that either hits a road block or branches off and connects us to a whole new road network. I give him 8 weeks to convince.”

    8 weeks to *convince*. Not 8 weeks to give a sign I can call positive. He hasn’t convinced, and it’s about 8 weeks.

    On the same day, you said: “If he has failed to give any persuasive proofs I will say that I think it is very unlikely that he is genuine.”

    Persuasive proof / positive sign. Not really the same thing.

    3. My own view is that the SGS Safety Certificate and the HydroFusion indication of independent testing are both positive signs.

    The SGS thing is a joke, but hydrofusion? You’ve made this argument often, but I don’t follow. First, it was not an independent test, but let’s say it was. How is a negative result positive for reality of cold fusion. I could see that it might be a positive sign in the pursuit of truth, but not a favorable sign for the reality of the phenomenon.

    Let me ask you, if one independent but negative test is a positive sign for cold fusion, would 10 independent but negative tests be 10 times as positive for cold fusion?

    They are not v. strong, but they are enough for me.

    They are not just weak, but one is negative, and they clearly don’t match what you claimed you were waiting for.

    4. I have already stated that I expect from hereon in a steady supply of confirmatory signs and data. If the well dries up I think you can take it as read that there is no viable technology there. The rate of info coming through has certainly increased in recent weeks and I expect that to build if this is genuine.

    If your criteria are as stated in number 3, then Rossi and Defkalion will have no trouble keeping the info coming to your satisfaction. The rate of info was much higher in the spring of 2011, but shouldn’t the quality of the info be important? The problem is that it never gets any better. And the recent Rossi and Defkalion reports are far less impressive than any of the Rossi reports from early 2011, and that’s saying something.

    Then, Rossi had claims of COP of 15 – 20 (Jan 14), and close to 200 (Feb), powers in the range of 15 kW, and he even claimed core temperatures in the range of 1500C. They were semi-public, he had academic witnesses (who failed the public), some press, and so on. Now, we just have his written report on a far less believable experiment, and from Defkalion, nothing but the testimony of a perpetual motion engineer, funded by the same pro-LENR group that funds Infinite Energy.

    If that doesn’t look like things are getting worse, nothing will.

    If it doesn’t you may have the pleasure of leaping upon the grave of my optimism.

    Won’t happen, because no matter what happens, you will find “positive” in it, and keep on waiting and seeing, indefinitely. There’s a whole crowd of you that have been seeing the positive in alleged fractions of a watt from Amoco to MIT to BLP for 23 years.

    • daniel maris

      October 26, 2012 at 12:11 am

      Popeye,

      Flattering though your post is (how long did it take you to go through my posts?)I think you are wasting your time. What Rossi does is the important thing, not what he says, or what I say.

      My comments for what they are worth:

      1. Er- yes, in the time since I wrote those posts… my judgement is we HAVE had “positive signs” (as I wrote). If you think the SGS safety certificate means nothing, well that is for you to defend against a big international safety certification company with a very high reputation. Take it up with them not me.

      2. I think we are seeing at the moment that increased stream of positive news about Rossi and LENR coming through that justifies an optimistic outlook.

      I stick to my prediction – we are at the cusp (this October)…if Rossi has a real technology we are now moving into the period where the technology goes viral. I think the current signs are in line with that – so I think by the New Year that should be very, very clear.

      • RonB

        October 26, 2012 at 12:52 am

        I hope you are right Daniel,
        The same goes with proof on LENR.
        Some folks have been covering this for many years and I’m sure that time has jaded a few.

        I ran across posts today with Mr. Cuda and maryugo discussing matters with Hank Mills. It seems the arguments haven’t changed much since that time. I was only starting to look at LENR back then and perhaps that’s why there’s still a ray of hope here.

        Come back and ask me in 23 years, I might have a different opinion.

        • daniel maris

          October 26, 2012 at 1:40 am

          RonB –

          I think that you can carry out a rational analysis of how LENR has gone. The focus on nickel-hydrogen has only emerged in the last few years.

          All LENR practitioners seem to point to the v. difficult control issues and also the lack of predictability.

          If I am wrong, so what? But there appear to be lots of interesting things going on and I am the sort of person who gets interested in interesting things. 🙂

      • JKW

        October 26, 2012 at 1:46 am

        Daniel, don’t feel too flattered. I think that Popeye’s intention was to analyze behavior patterns of an average member of your brotherhood (the left extremists seemingly had migrated to “the other site” with a couple of exceptions, and I wouldn’t even bother to read an analysis of their patterns). Not an encouraging prospect for your newest member the general, I guess. But it was his decision.

      • popeye

        October 26, 2012 at 2:35 am

        daniel maris posted on October 26, 2012 at 12:11 am:

        Flattering though your post is (how long did it take you to go through my posts?)

        Actually, I like predictions with actual deadlines, so I clip them as they come along. There are surprisingly few, since people are afraid to commit. Yours have been the exception, and will probably remain that way, since you’ve had to keep moving them.

        1. Er- yes, in the time since I wrote those posts… my judgement is we HAVE had “positive signs” (as I wrote).

        Yea, I got that. My objection was not so much that I disagree that the signs are positive (although I do). It was that your deadlines were not about waiting for “positive signs” but about waiting for “real evidence” and “third party confirmation” and “persuasive proofs”. Your positive signs cannot be called those things, and so you are clearly not following through on your promises.

        I think the current signs are in line with that – so I think by the New Year that should be very, very clear.

        I predict they will be every bit as murky as they are now, and were a year ago. And that come the new year, you’ll be saying things will be clear by spring, if by then you haven’t learned your lesson to keep predictions vague, so you can’t be called on them.

  17. popeye

    October 25, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    dragonX posted on October 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm:

    LENR needs to break at least in tens of millions $ R&D projects to speed it up the way it should be to serve this power hungry planet. Right now it is moving snail speed because it is in less than million R&D projects.
    Think only what 200 millions $ from government can do.

    By Storms’ estimate, about $500M has already been spent on it, with basically no progress. What makes you think the next $200 will make a difference. Natural phenomena are not for sale. And this one just might not be in the cards.

    You can also do a Manhatan project from the winning design and scale it up from government coffers and then distribute it to the masses almost for free.

    The Manhatten project had unequivocal evidence of fission, and an iron-clad theory to explain it, and a reasonably straight-forward plan to exploit it.There was enough certainty that the Little Boy would work, it was deployed without being tested.

    Cold fusion is not accepted as legitimate by the people who would fund it, or by the people who advise the people who would fund it. That’s a big difference.

    (Hot fusion also has unequivocal results, and a theory, but the plan to exploit it (outside the military) has always been fraught with risks.)

    Can you think on better bets than this?

    Clearly, the view of the DOE and their advisors is that just about anything is a better bet than this, including solar, wind, geothermal, fast breeders, thorium fission, and yes, plasma fusion. Until proof-of-principle is accepted — and this should be easy, if the claims made are valid — the field will continue to be ignored.

    Look what the Ansari Xprize did for commercial space tourism? Result: SpaceShip Two (SS2).

    But the reality of space travel is not in question.

    Let’s all ask for this, make a website or list or something and petition like mad cats on it.

    There appears to be a widely held misconception that the thing that cold fusion needs is effective lobbying. It doesn’t. It needs better data. Period. Push the people in it to get better data. If it’s real, you don’t need millions to prove it. P&F claimed to discover it with a few tens of thousands of dollars. Surely, that much is available to generate unequivocal evidence. But if it’s not real, no amount of money will be enough.

  18. ts

    October 26, 2012 at 2:50 am

    The stringing along continues. How many dozens of times have the high power LENR people given out hints and rumors of some great announcement only for it to either not materialize or to be just an announcement of another great announcement? I think that the high power LENR people are secretly laughing at all the people who signed up for the pre-order list and who believe them despite the fact that they have never passed one single fully independent test.

  19. JKW

    October 26, 2012 at 3:25 am

    Ransompw,
    In one of your posts you mentioned that you would make a prime scientists if you chose this particular career, but it didn’t suit you financially.
    In many other posts you highlighted your skills as an experienced lawyer, with suggestions about your connections with people making political decisions.
    Now you claim that in the Internet era with access to any information at the fingertips the peer review process became obsolete.
    I don’t negate your judiciary skills, but…
    Could I suggest that in this new information era you could devote your skills and passion to real issues with the legal system in this country, rather than playing Don Quixote to defend LENR? For example, in the context of current events, don’t you think that the electoral college system is becoming kind of obsolete? It made a perfect sense in 17 through part of 19 hundreds, where most of people did not have free access to information to evaluate the presidential candidates, but now? I happen to live in a state where my vote doesn’t matter much… How about popular vote system in this century of free information?
    Maybe we should leave science to scientists and law to lawyers?
    Or you can choose to continue charging the windmills.

  20. spacegoat

    October 26, 2012 at 4:30 am

    Popeye’s posts are quality posts.

    My argument with Popeye remains the same.

    1.Events of 1989 had a suppression effect on Cold Fusion.

    2.There is no other energy piste as promising as Cold Fusion.

    3.The cost-benefits-risk of performing Cold Fusion research is overwhelmingly positive. The Solyndra (now bankrupt) hair-brained scheme received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy in 2009 and also received $1 billion in venture capital funds from investors. So if the DOE can afford costly politically correct hair-brained schemes why can’t the DOE afford a once and for all, openly conducted program for Cold Fusion?

    4.”I can’t think of an alternative to peer-review for an agency to make their funding decisions.”
    4a.In some countries there exists such a thing as Strategic Science. Example, the Japanese governments first science strategy principle is:
    “By the year 2050, Japan will establish itself as a nation of dignity and will build Asian trust.”
    http://www.scj.go.jp/en/vision2050.pdf

    “Albert Einstein: I have little patience with scientists who take a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes where drilling is easy.”

    DOE decisions seem to be non-strategic, easy drilling or politically correct.

    4b.The peer review mechanism of some emperor editor accepting and rejecting papers without transparency and justification may easily be replaced with open and free internet publishing. The editing role remains the same, but decisions should be peer re-viewable and open to challenge.

    • JNewman

      October 26, 2012 at 5:22 am

      And we come full-circle back to the trope that what is preventing cold fusion from being definitively proven is lack of funding. I still don’t get it. Who should get the money and what will they do with it? Should Celani build a $10 million reactor? What would that be? Or should we use the million monkeys typing Shakespeare hypothesis? Get 5,000 scientists to do CF experiments. One of them is bound to get it right.

      Let’s be honest. If there is a convincing demonstration of the phenomenon, the money will flow like crazy. And the money will be used to bring the technology to the point of commercialization. But until such proof is provided, I don’t even understand what the money is needed for. What crucial thing are today’s researchers unable to do for lack of funds?

    • popeye

      October 26, 2012 at 8:04 am

      spacegoat posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:30 am:

      1.Events of 1989 had a suppression effect on Cold Fusion.

      Let’s see. Before 1989, the number of people working on cold fusion: Four: P&F&H and S.E. Jones are the only names I know about. Funding probably less than $100k

      After 1989: Tens of thousands of scientists for a short period, then dozens or hundreds of researchers over the next 2 decades with probably > $200 M in funding. The stampede to do cold fusion experiments, and get in on the latest revolution was short-lived because the claims didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Even so, many people continued to work on it, some with handsome funding from private industry.

      That means the events of 1989 had an enhancement effect on cold fusion, not a suppression effect.

      Now, in your view, it wasn’t enhanced enough, but in the view of others, it got far more than it deserved. You can’t argue it needs more money by simply asserting that you disagree with the judgement of mainstream science. You haven’t made a case that it deserves more.

      2.There is no other energy piste as promising as Cold Fusion.

      Again, that’s just an expression of your wishes and hopes, not an argument. The opinion of most people consulted by funding agencies is that just about every other energy piste is more promising than cold fusion.

      3.The cost-benefits-risk of performing Cold Fusion research is overwhelmingly positive.

      That’s the same as #2.

      So if the DOE can afford costly politically correct hair-brained schemes why can’t the DOE afford a once and for all, openly conducted program for Cold Fusion?

      They can afford to pump money into cold fusion. They choose to spend it on things they judge to have better cost-benefit risk. But it’s not clear that any amount of money would be enough to settle the question once and for all. More investment would attract more nutters to the field, and result in more of the same marginal, ambiguous, and equivocal results. Calorimetry is a fertile field for artifact, error, and deception.

      4.”I can’t think of an alternative to peer-review for an agency to make their funding decisions.”
-
      [4a – d]

      So, in parts a-d, you did not suggest an alternative to peer review for funding decisions. What do you mean by Strategic Science? Who defines the strategy. How do you spend the money? Consult lawyers and sociologists on internet forums?

      • spacegoat

        October 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        “That means the events of 1989 had an enhancement effect on cold fusion, not a suppression effect.”

        Goebels style repetition will win through in the end I suppose.

        “Tens of thousands of scientists for a short period, then dozens or hundreds of researchers over the next 2 decades with probably > $200 M in funding”

        Those tens of thousands came to a screeching halt after the pro-hot-fusion science establishment trashed the brilliance of P&F.

        Dozens or hundreds is not commensurate with the risk-costs-benefits.

        Jean-Paul Biberian, a seasoned and senior French scientist, http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian.blogspot.fr/ stated that LENR is principally coffee-break research with materials scraped together. This applies to France, a major OECD country.

        Regarding: There is no other energy piste as promising as Cold Fusion. “Again, that’s just an expression of your wishes and hopes, not an argument. ”
        No. Better than Hot Fusion energy density, inexhaustibly, no pollution, portability, decentralized distribution. As Nasa said “a game changer”.

        ” They choose to spend it on things they judge to have better cost-benefit risk.”

        See above on cost-benefit-risk.

        “But it’s not clear that any amount of money would be enough to settle the question once and for all. More investment would attract more nutters to the field, and result in more of the same marginal, ambiguous, and equivocal results. Calorimetry is a fertile field for artifact, error, and deception.”

        Which is why this subject is an excellent opportunity to set up Open Foundations for science, as per what has been done in the Computing Industry. Open data, decisions, transparency.

        “What do you mean by Strategic Science? Who defines the strategy. How do you spend the money? Consult lawyers and sociologists on internet forums?”

        Strategic science is a.long term (as per Japan) and b.allows for some risk taking (drilling where holes
        are not easy)

        Strategy would be decided just like any other foundation, through governance policy, papers and comments, with openness of data and decisions.

        Detailed budgets would be decided as usual, by peer review where #peers > 2, preferably much greater than 2 since modern Internet platforms facilitate this.

        Peer review journal editor Czars would be replaced by open review and decision making.

        • popeye

          October 27, 2012 at 8:01 pm

          spacegoat posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm:

          “That means the events of 1989 had an enhancement effect on cold fusion, not a suppression effect.”
          Goebels style repetition will win through in the end I suppose.

          Do you disagree that cold fusion research was enhanced — indeed, initiated — by events of 1989?

          “Tens of thousands of scientists for a short period, then dozens or hundreds of researchers over the next 2 decades with probably > $200 M in funding”

          Those tens of thousands came to a screeching halt after the pro-hot-fusion science establishment trashed the brilliance of P&F.

          Scientists are not that easily dissuaded from pursuing something they think is revolutionary, and will bring them fame and glory. The tens of thousands came to a screeching halt because under scrutiny, the claims simply did not stand up.

          Dozens or hundreds is not commensurate with the risk-costs-benefits.

          Others disagree, but the point is it *is* commensurate with the scale of the experiment, considering the phenomenon was “discovered” by 3 people with less than $100k.

          
No. Better than Hot Fusion energy density, inexhaustibly, no pollution, portability, decentralized distribution.

          None of that is true (energy density) or matters (no pollution) if it isn’t real.

  21. spacegoat

    October 26, 2012 at 6:10 am

    @JNewman
    “I still don’t get it. Who should get the money and what will they do with it?”

    If science had an open review mechanism, then peers would help decide.

    “million monkey” extreme arguments are not helpful.

    Excluding point 4a (funding), do you agree or disagree with points?

    • popeye

      October 26, 2012 at 8:09 am

      Ah, so you can’t think of something better than peer review for spending the money either.

    • JNewman

      October 26, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      Spacegoat, I do not agree with your points, most notably point 2. There is simply no reason whatsoever to make that assertion. And thank goodness for that, because if our best chance to solve our energy problems is something whose very existence is questionable, it would be very depressing. Of course, if you truly believe that, then you are probably quite depressed.

      I have to say that after all this time, I remain mystified by the whole business. It is abundantly clear what kind of work needs to be done to resolve the existential question about cold fusion and yet nobody will do it. Advocates make every excuse in the book for this state of affairs including the funding one, but it just doesn’t cut it. It does not require millions of dollars to do a proper experiment. Not even close. That is why the constant comparisons to hot fusion or photovoltaic manufacturing and such are just not applicable to tabletop science. I am still waiting to hear what someone can do with a pile of money that hasn’t already been done.

      • spacegoat

        October 26, 2012 at 1:42 pm

        ” It does not require millions of dollars to do a proper experiment. ”

        McKubre at SRI has performed proper experiments – at least sufficient to grab the further attention from the science establishment.

        The full understanding of the phenomenon may be a long and complex road.

        “..if our best chance to solve our energy problems is something whose very existence is questionable ”

        Not to be pedantic but I stated the risk-costs-benefits were highest with LENR from an individual project point of view. This does not preclude opening up other, much much more expensive projects, such as hot fusion, thorium, etc.

        • JNewman

          October 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm

          Of course, this advocacy of funding and the long road required to get a handle on the phenomenon implies that those who claim to be commercializing it now are not being truthful. Or do you think Rossi, DGT, Nanospire, and the other cold fusion entrepreneurs are full of baloney? I mean, if these people are about to launch products, why do we need to fund a bunch of research? They can fund it themselves once those massive profits start rolling in.

  22. spacegoat

    October 26, 2012 at 6:32 am

    The MFMP could use the advice of ecatnews “Popeye’s, JNewmans, Jay20011’s, etc”:

    “… suggestion from an experienced researcher that talked to me today. He advocated for carefully measuring the wire resistance over temperature before we load with Hydrogen – such as in Helium. Knowing how the resistance of the wire changes when it absorbs hydrogen and then if and how it changes if it starts creating energy will be important clues to understanding the process going on inside the wire.”

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate/progress-blog

    But do they prefer naysaying here on ecatnews?

    • RonB

      October 26, 2012 at 7:10 am

      I wonder if Dr. Storms didn’t just use a straight up gamma ray detector because he didn’t have access to one and only had to get by with his alpha,beta,gamma detector. Popeye was saying he should have done this or that but he’s working out of a lab attached to his house. How sad is that?

      Even those guys at QH are starting to sounds like a money scam. If they want to solicit money then in the idea of full transparency they need to present log files on the web of what they are spending the money on.

      There’s some rumor that 500M has been spent to date on research. Where’s the data from that???
      Even a failed experiment needs to be documented and the results published. Often more can be learned from what didn’t work than from what did.

      • spacegoat

        October 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm

        The MFMP is a good clearing house for LENR proposals.
        I am sure they will accommodate your wish for transparency on spending if you were to ask them.

    • RonB

      October 26, 2012 at 7:18 am

      I wonder if they have something to check for gamma rays. That would be amazing if they found it.

    • Jay2011

      October 26, 2012 at 7:06 pm

      @spacegoat,

      Thanks for the link. I actually do not have a problem with the general idea of applying open source or crowd-sourcing techniques to a whole host of endeavors including scientific research. Structuring and managing these types of projects is a huge challenge, but perhaps not a hopeless task. But like many things, it has to be managed as a meritocracy, not a democracy. I agree with Bob B that transparency is essential if money is being solicited. And developing a culture of openness, open critique, and continual improvement is also important. I think this is rather lacking in the LENR community.

      As far as the specific comment regarding measuring the wire resistance, I think it’s a good idea. I would have this data as a matter of course since if I were building such an experiment I would have voltage and current sensors across the wire for actual runs with H2 and a series of control runs. That said, wire resistance is a macroscopic quantity that may or may not well reflect what is going on an atomic level. McKubre made a lot of resistance measurements to determine the degree of deuterium loading in heavy water electrolysis experiments, and early on claimed a correlation between heat anomalies and loading. But over the years this information has not seemed to lead to much better reproducibility or increased heat outputs. Still, more data is generally a good thing.

      One other comment. Containing hydrogen is really hard, as this team is already discovering. It leaks through just about everything. Figuring out whether the pressure is going down because you’re absorbing hydrogen, or because the hydrogen is leaking out of the vessel, can be a problem.

      As far as being a naysayer, I just call it like I see it. Sometimes the BS gets a bit thick and I become motivated to say something. But it’s not really that fun to always be on the negative side of an argument. I’d prefer to argue on behalf of LENR. I just usually don’t have sufficiently good ammunition to make a strong argument. Popeye’s wrecking ball posts are almost always well thought through.

  23. GreenWin

    October 26, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Troubling news from Italy; scientists sentenced to jail terms for failure to perform:

    “Six Italian scientists and one government official face six-year jail terms for failing to warn citizens about the ravaging effects of the L’Aquila 6.3 magnitude quake that killed 309 people in 2009.”

    http://io9.com/5953701/verdict-due-in-trial-of-six-scientists-facing-manslaughter-charges-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake

    It seems these “crooks” made false statements about earthquake safety. A reason for Dr. Rossi to be circumspect. And for scientists the world over to consider the result of making false statements. Apparently even expert priests of science are not above the law.

    Ah well, IGZ will not imprison the guilty. IGZ will set them free… on the island.

    • Frank

      October 26, 2012 at 8:39 am

      Do you think that’s the reason why Rossi moved over to USA/Florida again?
      Or is it because it’s getting cold in his workshop in Bologna now? No, that can’t be the reason. – with the 1MW container there it shouldn’t be any problem to heat up this workshop and plant palm trees.

      Rossi is an entrepreneur, not a scientist.
      So he (and his partners) should be more worried about what he is (they are) promising regarding the progress in the e-cat development.

      Rossi latest reply to a question about el. power generation:
      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-372215

      Andrea Rossi
      October 25th, 2012 at 8:48 PM
      Dear Herb Gills:
      We are close to the solution.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.</

      Wait a moment – hasn't Rossi been 'very close' already one year ago?

      Andrea Rossi
      December 8th, 2011 at 9:56 AM
      Dear Felize:
      1- no. We are not yet ready to produce electric power, even if we are very close. I want also to say that an agreement we reached yesterday will accelerate this development.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • GreenWin

        October 26, 2012 at 8:49 am

        “We are a year away from scientific feasibility of it, proving it could work. We’re a decade away of proving this at commercial scale.” Ed Moses, Director National Ignition Facility, Feb, 2012 (CBS News)

        “Five billion dollars over its original budget and years behind schedule, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) deserves to be recognized as perhaps the biggest and fattest white elephant of all time.” National Ignition Facility: Mother of All Boondoggles? IEEE Spectrum 9/2012

        IGZ-2013 Fusionistas Welcome!

        • Frank

          October 26, 2012 at 10:45 am

          GreenWin,
          from your extensive nagging against NIF we know already that you don’t like that facility. – I tell you something: I’m not supporting it either because it serves (also) for military purpose (research on weapons of mass-destruction), and anyway – I’m not an American tax payer.

          But what’s the reason for your rants on hot-fusion in general? Why are you so jealous about hot fusion scientists? I hope it’s not because your girlfriend had once an affair with a hot-fusion scientist!

          Is it that you are jealous because they get tax-payers money for their research work, whereas Rossi and his partners (are you one of them?) have a hard time to lure in investors for money?
          Do you think it’s unfair that Rossi and his partners may not get rich on taxpayers expense as well, when – as you imply – hot fusion research does?

      • MaxS

        October 26, 2012 at 9:18 am

        Wait a moment – hasn’t Rossi been ‘very close’ already one year ago?

        His scale of proximity was perhaps a logarithmic scale, so even from far distance it looked close.

      • spacegoat

        October 26, 2012 at 1:55 pm

        Florida is a good retirement location for persons of Rossi’s age.

  24. Auenland

    October 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    First Rossi claimed he aims to penetrate the market with the e-cat with low prices, to destroy any competitors, because he didn’t know when the patent would be granted.
    But he didn’t only claim that, he also built a “fully robotized” factory because of that.
    So this was not only an idea that could be changed later, but it was a strategic decision of a chosen business model.

    Businesswise this strategy makes perfectly sense, because it creates cashflow as fast as possible and from this cashflow the developments of better products can can paid.

    And what happened?
    The problem with competitors has magically vanished, although
    1) more competitors and scientists than ever, are looking into LENR.
    2) he has built up a licensee network, people who put money into the business and want to get money from the products.

    So the pressure to go to market should have risen for this “CEO” dramatically, because more people than ever rely on him while the competition is increasing.

    If Rossi would have something, he would be afraid, that a every day a competitor could announce a breakthrough.

    He would do everything to get his factory running ASAP.
    If certificators would make problems, he would invite the most reputated scientists and to make the COP-measurements they need while only observing the process.
    Soon afterwards he could show the world the measurements of these independent experts, the results would be published in the scientific community and if bureaucracy would put any delays on the product, it would become a worldwide known scandal with so much pressure, that governments all over the world would lure him with fast certifications.

    Even more strange: the formerly planned main source of cashflow no longer is of any interest, for this “company” and Rossi now seems to have all the time in the world while he is playing around with hot-cats and even gas-cats and every new “breakthrough” means a further delay in availability, instead of a better availability.

    He follows excatly the path of scammers, to give their believers always new hope, and with this trick they avoid that they can come to the conclusion, that the product cannot be real: “What if this time it’s different?”

    Does this only me remind of people, who can be betrayed in partnerships and are not capable to draw a line? “What if this time he/she changes the behaviour? The next time i will draw my consequences, but I must give him/her another chance because he/she could really change.”

    Cheat me once, shame on you, cheat me twice, shame on me.

  25. Quax

    October 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    To comment on the spacegoat-popeye discussion re more funding. May I position yet again my LENR clearinghouse suggestion?

    I.e. an independent LENR reproduction effort starting with the best papers in the field, with the stated goal to capture the true nature of any observed anomalous heat effect.

    Let the chips fall where they may.

    Seems to me a modicum of funding should suffice to either kill or properly resuscitate this LENR zombie science.

    • JNewman

      October 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Quax, sounds like a good idea. However, whenever you ask people for the best papers in the field, they refuse saying that you wouldn’t read them anyway. Instead, they tell you to look at 3,000 papers on Rothwell’s site. So apparently, the best papers are a secret available only to members of the clan. Until that changes, I don’t see how your idea can be implemented.

      • Quax

        October 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm

        JNewman, with sufficient funding, processing 3000 papers to identify the best ones, shouldn’t be too much of an obstacle.

        At any rate everything before 2004 must have been already sorted for the DOE panel. This alone will cut down on the amount of papers that remain to be ranked.

        • Al Potenza

          October 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm

          Rothwell supposedly reads them all. But when you ask him for the best ones, he just refers you to review articles and books. Cop out.

          And he never gives an answer when asked for robust and reliable experiments, especially when the person addressing the question includes specific power, time, independent replication, and proof of the reliability of the measurements. Seems he can’t find a single paper that meets reasonable criteria for those parameters.

    • daniel maris

      October 26, 2012 at 7:13 pm

      Isn’t that what the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is doing very precisely?

    • popeye

      October 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm

      Quax posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm:

      Seems to me a modicum of funding should suffice to either kill or properly resuscitate this LENR zombie science.

      Again, I don’t believe it. Null results for some experiments will not dissuade True Believers. I can’t think of any results that would.

  26. GreenWin

    October 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    @Frank, I agree with you, and oppose NIF on weapons grounds alone. No I am not jealous of fusionists romantic skills, or their income. Most scientists do not enter the profession to get wealthy (medical researchers, energy experts, big-ag/pharma scientists – may.)

    I reprint quotes from major journals and media to emphasize the hypocrisy of critics of LENR timeline, promises of proof, data, success, etc. There are many in the mainstream who are fed up with the past 60 years of fusion promises, e.g. “Twenty years from now we will have unlimited, clean fusion energy for all mankind.”

    Here’s what uber-progressive MIT insider, and climate guru Joe Romm has to say on the matter:

    “It’s time to scale back the fusion effort toward very long-term research and use most of the money for emerging carbon-free technologies that hold the prospect of significant contribution to preserving a livable climate while there is still time to do so — energy efficiency and renewable energy…”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/09/973021/ny-times-funding-for-fusion-better-spent-on-renewable-sources-of-energy-that-are-likely-to-be-cheaper-and-quicker/

    Joe details MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center Prof Lawrence M. Lidsky who had the gall to speak “truth to power” in his famous essay, “The Trouble with Fusion” – http://bit.ly/RQzMuu.

    I would happily continue funding ITER and NIF if they were held to the very same criterion espoused here toward Rossi and LENR. Where’s proof of success? Third party verification? Where’s even ONE useful WATT over-unity? After 60 years and $274 billion international tax dollars – all fusion efforts worldwide have produced is ZERO useful “clean, unlimited energy.” THAT is a boondoggle.

    “Even if ignition is achieved in the laboratory in the next several years, scaling up to a demonstration plant will cost billions and may ultimately show that fusion is not a practical source of power.” William Broad, Oct, 2012 New York Times

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm

      As usual GWin a good post, history seems however to provide evidence of our ability to overcome what we sometimes interperet as impossible. “It takes time to do hard tasks and a little more time to do the impossible”. The impossible is simply interpretation by the observer.

      If there were a concerted effort to bring forward “a goal” and not simply a step, and a focus totally onto the goal(making LENR perform). LENR will be produced, however heres the catch 22, life and other things happening in the world that makes one observe a reality that does not provide the correct atmosphere for future progress, in fact it shows clearly our digression and “loosing the drive”.

      LENR will not become available to us, we are loosers as a human civilization. People can’t even respect the land enough not to throw trash out and polute further and that’s one simple example today. How about pumping large volumes of viscous fluid from within the earth at a specific area of depth and then transporting it and further burning it into our atmosphere causing “heavier air”, and so on, surely these posters on this site can list a million more screw up’s created by “greed”.

      So this is really the bottom line for failure to bring the fusion to market and not the failure of the potential here now. People now are limited, until we can know that killing is bad for us and live by that one simple factor,”thou shalt not kill” nothing else would matter because that mindset is what is needed to get the “illusionary impossible” evident in physical form.

      And, It doesn’t matter who said that, killing is bad for the human, and I am exampling all the killings in the last month on the mainland. Insanity is what we are dealing with, change is evident when motion is present so I think we are moving right along here.

    • Frank

      October 26, 2012 at 7:55 pm

      Where’s proof of success? Third party verification? Where’s even ONE useful WATT over-unity?

      The physic of hot-fusion is understood and demonstrated by the sun and stars every second since billions of years.
      We even had some “demonstrations” (H-bomb) on earth also.
      To control the hot-fusion process in a way that it can be used for el. power generation is – beyond doubt – a extremely challenging engineering problem.
      However hot-fusion doesn’t require a (impossible) “twist othe laws of nature”.
      Since I believe in progress in engineering over the years (just think about the change in computer technology over the last decades), I’m hopeful that hot-fusion eventually will succeed.
      Surely, there are also opinions that hot-fusion doesn’t deserve fundings. I don’t share them – because I think the benfits from hot-fusion – if successful – would be so drastic that it’s worthwhile to invest in an experiment like ITER.
      And – as already mentioned earlier – if you put the costs for ITER in relation to the cost BP has to pay because of the Deepwater-horizon accident, they aren’t so impressive anymore.
      What me wonders is, that cold-fusion protagonists frequently complains that cold -fusion is supressed by ‘big oil’ etc, but never come up with the idea that there might be lobbying against hot-fusion (which would be more reasonable)

      Regarding fundings for cold-fusion:
      If Rossi would have what he claims (or a portion from his claims) he just would need to give one convincing demonstration and he would get funds over funds.
      So, it’s up to him. Don’t complain others that tax-payers money doesn’t go to him.

      • GreenWin

        October 26, 2012 at 10:44 pm

        Frank, thanks for your comments. I quote Joe Romm simply because he represents extremist mainstream climate science and the green world agenda. When Joe turns on mainstream research, you’re in trouble. When he complains about fringe research – it carries no weight.

        More to the point though is Joe’s referral to Dr. Lidskey who waved the fusion red flag way back in 1983:

        “Long touted as an inexhaustible energy source for the next century, fusion as it is now being developed will almost certainly be too expensive and unreliable for commercial use.” Prof. Lawrence M. Lidskey MIT, Associate Director Plasma Science & Fusion Center, editor Journal of Fusion Energy.

        And with certain prescience Lidskey wrote this:

        “Neutrons induce radioactivity and damage reactors. Neutron-free fusion might provide inexhaustible, benign power.”

        Odd, W-Larsen theory goes on about “ultra-cold neutrons;” referred to by some as pseudo-neutrons. Lidskey was thinking of boron II – but visualized the correct goal of releasing binding energy without radioactive products.

        http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf

    • popeye

      October 26, 2012 at 9:11 pm

      GreenWin posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm:

      I reprint quotes from major journals and media to emphasize the hypocrisy of critics of LENR timeline, promises of proof, data, success, etc. There are many in the mainstream who are fed up with the past 60 years of fusion promises,

      But what you succeed in doing is exposing your own hypocrisy by validating the view of the mainstream. The truth is that while many in the mainstream are critical of hot fusion, there are also many who support taking the risk. And the research is published in mainstream journals, and it receives mainstream funding.

      Cold fusion on the other hand is almost completely rejected by the mainstream. It is not published in prominent mainstream journals, and in particular, not in nuclear physics journals. It is not funded by most mainstream funding organizations. And 2 mainstream expert panels have considered it, and judged the evidence to be inconclusive.

      Of course, your answer to this is that cold fusion is being suppressed by corrupt mainstream scientists. So, when the mainstream says what you believe, they are credible. But when they disrespect your True Beliefs, they are corrupt. That’s hypocrisy.

      When you compare the timelines, promises, and proofs, you always ignore several points:

      1) The scale is vastly different, and so experimental iterations are measured in decades instead of days. The whole point of cold fusion, and its attractiveness was that it was *not* like hot fusion, in that it was small scale, and therefore easy to deploy. Multiply delays in cold fusion by 10,000, and then compare.

      2) In hot fusion, the basic principle is not in doubt, and so failure to deliver on promises of timely technological development is tolerated. In cold fusion, the principle is not considered proven, and indeed is considered to be highly unlikely, and so funding is not considered worthwhile in the first instance. Failure to prove the principle in 23 years just confirms the wisdom of that decision. You can be sure that if the principle of cold fusion had been unequivocally demonstrated in 1989, or any time after, the field would be forgiven delays in developing the technology. Likewise, if the principle of hot fusion were not generally accepted, it would not be supported either. So, to emphasize, the hot fusion delays are technological, the cold fusion delays are in proving there is a phenomenon. That puts hot fusion ahead of cold fusion; way ahead.

      3) In hot fusion, there have been no claims of break-even, so their failure to demonstrate break-even is honest. In cold fusion, the claims of high (and even infinite) COP are frequent, but the evidence that it even happens is not considered credible. So, if the claims were honest, then it is justified to ask for the meat. There’s never any meat.

      Here’s what uber-progressive MIT insider, and climate guru Joe Romm has to say on the matter:
      “It’s time to scale back the fusion effort toward very long-term research and use most of the money for emerging carbon-free technologies that hold the prospect of significant contribution to preserving a livable climate while there is still time to do so — energy efficiency and renewable energy…”

      True, he’s pretty skeptical, and he’s in good company. It’s a controversial topic. And as I’ve said frequently, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, preferring to leave it to expert peer-review.

      Evidently you respect Romm’s point of view. It turns out he’s pretty skeptical of cold fusion too. He wrote about the 60 minutes episode on cold fusion in 2009:

      “I was very unconvinced by the over-the-top hype from the main expert on the show: […] Frankly, this guy sounded like dozens of very smart and sincere people I’ve heard over the past 15 years give powerpoint presentations about how their amazing technology breakthrough would solve the energy crisis.
      Count me unconvinced.”

      Then he referred favorably to Steve Novella’s (neuroscientist at Yale, and professional skeptic) post on the subject, which was even more negative (though not as negative as I am — what can you expect from a neuroscientist):

      “As far as I can tell, we are no where near achieving cold fusion, which may not even be possible. Justifications for cold fusion at present are purely speculative. I have no problem with companies or individuals dedicating their time and resources to researching cold fusion. I think it is prudent to invest a small amount in research into unlikely claims that are at least possible and would have a huge payoff.
      However, large scale government investment does not seem warranted by current evidence and theory. ”

      I would happily continue funding ITER and NIF if they were held to the very same criterion espoused here toward Rossi and LENR. Where’s proof of success? Third party verification?

      Your problem is that you don’t understand the criteria required of LENR researchers. It’s not proof of a successful product, just proof-of-principle. There is no disagreement, even among critics, that that criterion has been well established in hot fusion.

      Where’s even ONE useful WATT over-unity? After 60 years and $274 billion international tax dollars – all fusion efforts worldwide have produced is ZERO useful “clean, unlimited energy.” THAT is a boondoggle.

      And this is just childish rhetoric. You’re right. Not one watt. NOT ONE WATT. NOT ONE WATT. But people understand that a half-finished car has not driven ONE MILE, and a half-finished bridge has not conveyed ONE VEHICLE. Rational critics look at the progress. There is also ZERO useful energy produced by cold fusion, but that’s not the basic criticism of the field. It’s that THERE’s NO PROGRESS, and THERE’s NO PROOF OF PRINCIPLE. You can’t make those criticisms against hot fusion, and so you fall to the very lame, “there’s no useful energy”.

      • GreenWin

        October 26, 2012 at 10:52 pm

        @popee… please, consider Occam’s razor and the wisdom of brevity. With respect to your palaverous commentary, see my response to Frank, above at October 26, 2012 at 10:44 pm.

      • Shane D.

        October 27, 2012 at 12:38 am

        popeye,

        I’m interested to hear a bit more about these “negative” LENR studies/publications you lightly touched upon earlier:

        “Douglas Morrison, before he died, made himself intimately familiar with the field, attended all the ICCF meetings, wrote regular newsletter style updates. He was clearly an authority, and he considered the probability of it being real to be about 10^-50.

        Kirk Shanahan is perhaps not a famous authority, but is intimately familiar with the field, has done experiments, and published papers, and he thinks cold fusion is not real.

        There are other negative publications, including one published this year on Pd-D and Pd-H, in which the excess heat is attributed to chemistry. (See Britz’s bibliography) . Also there are the folks at earthtech.org”.

        Pretty vague for popeye? Plus it seemed you threw those out there without a whole lot of confidence. Especially considering, when you admit above that:

        “2 mainstream expert panels have considered it (cold fusion), and judged the evidence to be inconclusive.”

        …I suspect you are talking about those two DOE panels?

        If so, “inconclusive” is not supportive of either the believers, or skeptics. However, it seems to me that when one is talking a new energy source that could change the world, being unsure after intense review, by a panel of leading experts in their field, would be a check in the meta-data column?

        Thanks for the links to those negative pubs.

        • popeye

          October 27, 2012 at 7:56 pm

          Shane D. on October 27, 2012 at 12:38 am:

          “2 mainstream expert panels have considered it (cold fusion), and judged the evidence to be inconclusive.”
          …I suspect you are talking about those two DOE panels?
          If so, “inconclusive” is not supportive of either the believers, or skeptics. However, it seems to me that when one is talking a new energy source that could change the world, being unsure after intense review, by a panel of leading experts in their field, would be a check in the meta-data column?

          This is the essential difference between True Believers and skeptics. The TB’s have no sense of the extraordinary nature of the claims. Extraordinary claims *do* require extraordinary evidence, and without it, continued skepticism is appropriate. And the more experiments that are done, without improvement in the quality of the evidence, the lower the credibility of the claims.

          If you tell me you were abducted by aliens, and the evidence is not conclusive, I’m gonna think you probably imagined it.

  27. RonB

    October 26, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Looks like the Israeli Energetics Technologies LLC company has thrown in the towel.

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/10/24/university-of-missouri-acquires-energetics-lenr/

    Since MU has bought out their equipment it may mean that MU has something more promising!

    • Al Potenza

      October 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm

      Really? Maybe you can explain why a company would throw away a successful cold fusion program!

  28. Methusela

    October 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    http://research.missouri.edu/iccf18/welcome

    It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to this year’s ICCF 18 Conference. We at the University of Missouri (MU) are delighted to team with Purdue University and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (UICU) to review and explore developments in condensed matter nuclear science. There have been great advances in this discipline over the last five years by research labs and private institutions around the world, and this work will be explored at ICCF-18. The Naval Research Lab (NRL), and many other excellent laboratories have confirmed that the excess heat effects reported by Fleischmann and Pons are real, and roughly one thousand times larger than can be attributed to a chemical process. Other phenomena, such as transmutation and nuclear process of geologic origin, remain at the forefront of current inquiry. There have also been developments and confirmations of nuclear process in other condensed matter systems, and many of these reports come from outside the traditional ICCF Community. For example, NASA, using its FERMI gamma burst satellite has confirmed antimatter ejections from major thunderstorms many hundreds of times. In the past, we have seen the development of pyro-electric hydrogen fusion at UCLA, and the development of piezo-electric hydrogen fusion continues at MU today. Clearly, condensed matter nuclear science is undergoing a renaissance. Join us here at the University of Missouri as we review the state of our understanding of these systems, and as we apply the scientific method to understanding anomalous phenomena that are based upon reproducible empirical reports.

    Josh will still have his head stuck in the sand. Perhaps there will be a picture of him in that pose on his tombstone?

    • GreenWin

      October 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      You mean something like this Methusela??

      http://bit.ly/O5kVvk

      • Methusela

        October 26, 2012 at 8:28 pm

        Indeed!

  29. daniel maris

    October 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Popeye’s criticism of me seems to rest on his denial that a Safety Certificate from a highly respected inspection company is evidence that he is “selling a 1MW machine”.

    It’s not proof positive but I didn’t talk about proof. The Safety Certificate is real evidence and in the context of other evidence of progress on LENR eg the Celani experiment, I feel Rossi is still a legitimate object of interest in this field.

    • JNewman

      October 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      I would conjecture that you are among a very small number of people who believes that the SGS safety certificate means anything at all… and that undoubtedly includes Andrea Rossi among those who don’t.

      • daniel maris

        October 27, 2012 at 12:53 am

        Fair enough – that’s your view. We’ll soon see who is right.

        • JNewman

          October 27, 2012 at 1:37 am

          No, I’m sure we won’t.

    • popeye

      October 26, 2012 at 9:20 pm

      daniel maris posted on October 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm:

      Popeye’s criticism of me seems to rest on his denial that a Safety Certificate from a highly respected inspection company is evidence that he is “selling a 1MW machine”.

      No. You’re not paying attention. It clearly isn’t evidence that the machine is for sale, even if one agrees it’s a positive sign, but that’s *not* the criticism.

      The criticism is that you said that absent “real evidence” and “third party confirmation” and “persuasive proofs” of a successful device, you would lose confidence. The SGS cannot be regarded as any of those, and absolutely not the 3rd.

      It’s not proof positive but I didn’t talk about proof.

      What? You specifically talked about persuasive proof, and I quoted it twice. It’s like arguing with Rossi.

      • daniel maris

        October 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        Hmm…I couldn’t find the post where I refer to persuasive proofs to see what the context was. Normally I am carefully to distinguish evidence from proof. Proof for me in this case is only going to be when someone markets a working device or otherwise gives a range of convincing evidence to show such a device exists.

        For me the SGS evidence has to be read in combination with the Hydrofusion test and also other confirmations that nickel-hydrogen is the most promising approach.

        I am not a scientist or engineer, I am reaching my views on a wide range of evidence as much to do with psychology and social behaviour as anything else.

        My view is that LENR is almost definitely a real phenomenon, that Rossi is working with the most promising combination and that one cannot at this stage say for sure that he is scamming or deluded. (I think I would rule out incompetent – I don’t think one could be innocently incompetent having been in the field for so long).

        This isn’t going to go on forever. I am happy to be patient about Rossi and see what happens over the next few weeks.

  30. Quax

    October 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Greenwin are you using the royal “we” now?

    We have pointed to not four but five Nobel Laureates who have not only touched but engaged in cold fusion research with their fleshly minds.

    Anytime I read a LENR paper I also engage in cold fusion research with my fleshly mind. Pretty awesome that I have this in common with five Nobel Laureates.

    So far my LENR probability meter remains stuck at 50%.

    But I am glad to see that the EU may throw some money towards this (the link is from I think it was Taylor’s (?) presentation – a believer who deserves praise for trying to approach this with a very rational framwork).

    Not the Clearinghouse effort that I would like to happen, but hopefully will lead to some more quality research.

    • GreenWin

      October 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm

      Ah, well, honestly Quax, since I lay no claim to academically codified science expertise, I do rely on the communal “I” – be it royal or otherwise. You are of course correct to note that engagement of mind need only be study.

      However my point to call your presumably off the cuff remark regarding the caliber of scientist in cold fusion research – remains. There are now hundreds of “top notch” researchers in CF, as there were back in F&P days.

      the Emerging Materials EC report has been around for a while. We shall see what actually gets funded in the FP.

      • Quax

        October 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm

        Greenwin, I hope your statement

        There are now hundreds of “top notch” researchers in CF, as there were back in F&P days.

        turns out to be correct. Because then we should also get top notch papers eventually.

        Contrary to what our resident legal department thinks, high quality experimental physics is really tricky. If I would have stayed in the physics biz and worked my ass off, maybe I could have become top notch. Alas, I was always more interested in theory, and artificial neural network research eventually lured me into an IT career (with a complimentary MBA along the way to get some better handle on business).

        Just like an opera connaisseur can tell you if a voice is exceptional, I think my background allows me to some extend to identify good papers, but most of the LENR stuff falls a bit short. Tantalizing at times, but no slam dunk. Most annoying is the lack of consistency.

        I.e. I liked the care that went into some of the Japanese transmutation experiments (if I recall correctly the ones supported by Mitsubishi).

        There were reasonable objections raised i.e. parameters that should have been ruled out in a follow-up, but there is no record of a follow-up. If there was one, and it was negative, I really wish they’d publish it nonetheless (at least to arxiv.org).

        • Shane D.

          October 27, 2012 at 12:59 am

          Quax,

          Give me your take on the quality of the cold fusion scientists. Yes, I know some are not so impressive, but what about those at the top? The upper 50%?

          Popeye incessantly denigrates them and while we don’t know popeyes bonafides, we look at his volumes and volumes and volumes of words, some mean’t to confuse, some not mean’t for anything, but many, obviously, written by someone who knows his physics.

          Then again, I read these upper tier LENR scientists, and honestly, I think they could, one on one, kick popeyes ass here on the topic?… but I could be wrong.

          So Quax, you seem laid back about all this… what do you think?

        • GreenWin

          October 27, 2012 at 4:54 am

          Quax, I’ll not disagree with your supposition that “most of the LENR stuff falls a bit short.” But then, it was Franklin’s unscientific perception there was an unseen force in the key of his kite. It was Curie’s intuition that radium emitted unseen energy. And W. C. Roentgen inadvertently discovered his CRT was emitting x-rays.

          Each of these scientists, looked foolish and fell short of academically prescribed method. But each made important discoveries that advanced the science of physics.

          Thus, “falling short” is never criterion to dismiss a discovery. In fact it is precisely the unanticipated, irregular, falling short experiments that change the world.

          So, do you and your fellow skeps insist on decorum and “falling long” – or on walking the real walk? Going into the field willing to stumble upon unknown phenomenon that might very well make the world a better place? How about coming off the high horse of old “science” and allowing new ideas to procreate?

          • popeye

            October 27, 2012 at 7:52 pm

            GreenWin posted October 27, 2012 at 4:54 am:

            Quax, I’ll not disagree with your supposition that “most of the LENR stuff falls a bit short.” But then, it was Franklin’s unscientific perception there was an unseen force in the key of his kite. It was Curie’s intuition that radium emitted unseen energy. And W. C. Roentgen inadvertently discovered his CRT was emitting x-rays.
            Each of these scientists, looked foolish and fell short of academically prescribed method. But each made important discoveries that advanced the science of physics.

            You’re really grasping here GW. None of those cases bear any resemblance to cold fusion at all. Franklin was looking to prove that lightning consisted of electricity, which had already been discovered.

            Just because M. Curie is a woman, doesn’t mean she made her mark using intuition. She used highly systematic methods for her discoveries. She *measured* radiation from various materials after it had been discovered in uranium salts. And she found pitchblende produced more radiation than uranium, and proposed new elements, one of which was radium. It was smart, rational, systematic work. I have nothing against intuition (Einstein was blessed with it), but Curie’s work is not an example of it. In any case, her discoveries were completely robust and credible and could be repeated by anyone. Nothing like cold fusion.

            Inadvertent is not the same as falling short. After Roentgen discovered x-rays, he secluded himself in the lab for several weeks while he painstakingly and systematically characterized them. And when he gave the world x-rays, no one ever doubted the phenomenon, even though an explanation for them would take a few more years. How is that at all like cold fusion?

            Thus, “falling short” is never criterion to dismiss a discovery. In fact it is precisely the unanticipated, irregular, falling short experiments that change the world.

            Unanticipated and irregular, yes, but experiments that fall short of definitive evidence do not change the world. And when they fall short on extraordinary claims after 20 years, the claims are probably bogus. And following bogus claims is not how the world changes.

            How about coming off the high horse of old “science” and allowing new ideas to procreate?

            You mean abandon the old science that gave us electricity, x-rays, and radiation, in favor of the bumbling science that gave us homeopathy and perpetual motion scams?

  31. Jami

    October 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    RonB

    “People are being too brief and leaving out what might be valuable information.”

    I hope you don’t think Storms left out the most important parts because he couldn’t afford more paper. I agree that the Storms story is sad – but not that sad.

    “I wonder if Dr. Storms didn’t just use a straight up gamma ray detector because he didn’t have access to one and only had to get by with his alpha,beta,gamma detector.”

    Riiight. He was conducting an experiment on radiation and didn’t have access to a gamma detector. Even in LENR circles, that would be regarded as a pretty lame excuse or a very bad joke or both. Besides, as was pointed out already, he wouldn’t need one anyway. A sheet of paper or plastic would have been a bad substitution but far better than nothing.

    “There’s some rumor that 500M has been spent to date on research. Where’s the data from that???”

    Start at lenr-canr.org. Believe it or not – most of the stuff is there.

    “Even a failed experiment needs to be documented…”

    Yeah. People used to criticise the LENR people for not doing so. I disagree. So far, they documented failed experiments only. What’s required is one that didn’t fail.

    “Often more can be learned from what didn’t work than from what did.”

    According to most LENR researchers, they took that very much to heart. i.e. once they “succeeded” with an experiment, you hear nothing more about it until they show up a decade later with something completely different. If P&F really showed cold fusion in 1989, why didn’t the community build on that and improved it? How can the same people who are absolutely convinced that P&F were right cheer on Celani with his wire 23 years later? Why does he waste his time on something only remotely related when a viable way of producing energy from nuclear reactions at low temperatures has been discovered two decades ago? Or why didn’t he at least continue improving his ’95 design which, according to himself, had a COP of 1.4 when it really worked only to come back seven years later with COP 1.15 ?

    • RonB

      October 26, 2012 at 8:46 pm

      Jami,
      Honestly I don’t know. It all seems very confusing to me. I am totally in the dark with it comes to academia but a fellow engineer of mine with a master in physics told me he was recruited for a PHD program doing research and he told me he was totally not interested in all the politics involved and only wanted to make things.

      I guess I am naive in the extreme to believe that someone would hide data or leave out important details in an experiment. That just seems retarded since it will come out at some point.
      Dr. Storms is not new to radiation measurements (I read his profile) and I would trust that if he thinks there’s radiation there that’s significant enough to report that it is significant to report. Again, I’m naive so he might be faking it all.
      When you looked at these papers that claimed no results, were they well written or full of holes like the ones we’ve read on the positive side?

      When I look at the other labs that set out to duplicated F&P’s results they changed the setup. They used different configurations of metals, different concentrations of hydrogen and different voltages being applied. What is with that?????
      Are they just stupid??
      My personal opinion (and I say it again) is EGO. They “think” they know better so they allow themselves to setup the test differently because what they are planning will be even better if it works.
      Case in point was again the attempt to replicate the frato-fusion claimed by the Russians.
      They spent a ton of money making the metals balls and 99.9% deuterium rather than just just doing exactly what the Russians did and checking for results.
      I think they make assumptions about what is going on and then take off from there and end up getting nothing and then report that the experiment that they had duplicated must have been just delusion.

      This is where all the money goes.

      • Jami

        October 26, 2012 at 9:58 pm

        “Are they just stupid??”

        You imply that they all set out to exactly replicate P&F. First of all, that wasn’t possible until ’92 or so because P&F kept the details about their experiments close to their chests in the beginning – so, no, they weren’t stupid. More worrying from a LENR proponent’s perspective should be, that P&F didn’t manage to prove it themselves – despite serious funding from Toyota. Were they just stupid? Did their EGO tell them to never replicate their supposedly successful, original experiment as it was? I think not.

        • Ransompw

          October 27, 2012 at 4:46 am

          Jami:

          Your point is actually very interesting. No one had the ability to duplicate P & F experiment until 92 but this same scientific community determined in 1989 that P & F were delusional and/or incompetent and Cold Fusion was not worth funding experimentally. That really says it all.

          • popeye

            October 28, 2012 at 12:11 am

            Ransompw posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:46 am:

            Your point is actually very interesting. No one had the ability to duplicate P & F experiment until 92 but this same scientific community determined in 1989 that P & F were delusional and/or incompetent and Cold Fusion was not worth funding experimentally. That really says it all.

            It says it all? What does it say about Toyota shutting down the P&F lab after 10 years and $50M? What does it say about t he failure of all the scientists who continued working on cold fusion (many top-notch by GreenWin’s estimation) to be able to prove the reality of the phenomenon to the world?

            I don’t actually know what details Jami is referring to that were withheld, but I assume it has something to do with *exact* replication. P&F published in 1989, and gave presentations. It is reasonable for the ERAB panel to assume that they had given enough information for others to observe a nuclear effect. It certainly seemed from the Fleischmann-Lewis exchange at one of the press conferences that Fleischmann wanted to be replicated.

            If they didn’t give enough information, then the negative recommendation can only be blamed on P&F. But the subsequent failures, after what presumably was full disclosure, is most likely nature’s fault.

        • RonB

          October 27, 2012 at 5:14 am

          Jsmi,
          I didn’t know F&P didn’t publish the details.
          Well the report that I looked at showed what F&P did (as far as Ni/H prep, voltages) and the replication efforts had different parameters for those. That is what I find amazing. How can you call it replication?
          You need to call it something else.

          You imply that they all set out to exactly replicate P&F
          To me replicate means make an exact copy. Maybe scientists use that word to mean something else.

    • RonB

      October 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm

      According to most LENR researchers, they took that very much to heart. i.e. once they “succeeded” with an experiment, you hear nothing more about it until they show up a decade later with something completely different.

      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

      I don’t know if it’s true that working on cold fusion is like opening yourself for ridicule by people who have closed minds. That very well could explain why progress is so slow.

      Do you think that’s possible?

      • Jami

        October 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm

        Some of you have a very strange idea about how science works in the real world. A “closed mind” isn’t why you become a scientist. There are exceptions, of course. Those who study, say, physics only to teach it may be different and overall more interested in the educational aspects. But most of the scientists I know didn’t put in all the effort because they wanted to stay rooted in the status quo. They all want to be on the cutting edge and discover something new and unique. They don’t want to parrot what everybody could google in a couple of hours for the rest of their lives. So, no, I don’t think you’ve got a point there at all. Ridicule is part of the game. Sometimes it’s an indicator that you’re on to something. But being ridiculed doesn’t mean you’re right. More often than not, it means you’re just very wrong. LENR is definitely not a victim of some imagined mental immobility of science.

        • RonB

          October 26, 2012 at 10:33 pm

          Jami,
          Ridicule is part of the game.

          If that’s true then it explains quite a bit to me. It’s time to stop playing games and get to work.
          I have a feeling that’s why science is so slow to get things done.
          In industry someone who plays games is out the door in a heartbeat. Perhaps I’m the wrong person to judge all this since I’m only looking in from the outside but believe me I do know what goes on in industry and by in large we’ve been very successful in developing new products and there’s hell to pay if schedules are not met. (Unlike hot-fusion).. they just get a few more years and millions of dollars.

          Maybe I’ve used the wrong words “Closed mind”.. when I should have said that their “mind was already made up going into the discussion/research”.

          • RonB

            October 26, 2012 at 10:41 pm

            lol I guess you can’t rub out an entire post and replace it with something new!

            (the replacement was supposed to be..

            “This seems pointless. I’m at a loss to try to understand why scientists work the way they do. It seems that they should work together for the common good rather than to worry about who gets the credit. “

          • Quax

            October 26, 2012 at 11:11 pm

            RonB


            In industry someone who plays games is out the door in a heartbeat.

            Seriously, where the heck are you working and can I have a job there?

            If been a consultant for my entire private sector life and there has been not one project where there is no politics involved on the client side.

            It is constant infighting. Department heads who don’t want to give up control, employees who fight new performance metrics because they fear transparency and loss of control, I could write 4 times the volume of popeye’s data through-put if I’d stick to this subject.

            Again where the heck are you working, and how long have you been working in the private sector?

            Admittedly the public sector isn’t any better, but it sure as hell ain’t worse.

            I am at the point were I have resigned to work as a consultant for the rest of my working life, because this way you don’t become tangled up in politics long term. I hate workplace politics.

          • RonB

            October 27, 2012 at 12:50 am

            Quax,

            Ok, maybe I exaggerate a bit.

            35 years, same company.. it was a great place to work. I retired early last year and discovered LENR (ugh) lol

            oops.. adding.. it’s about a 500M company but got sucked up by a huge company about a decade ago.

            about the people..
            When the layoffs started coming around in the late 80’s lots of the people that couldn’t work well with others were gone. All that were left were the worker-bees.
            That was nice. It crept in again but then would come another layoff!

          • RonB

            October 27, 2012 at 1:36 am

            Quax
            You would fit in so good to work there as long as you stayed off the internet blogs when you were supposed to be working : )

            With time-to-market pressures, there’s precious little time for office politics or web surfing unless you’re doing product related research.

            I was a loaned engineer quite a few times in my career and I did work with research institutions. I was surprised just how much of their day was absorbed with personal business and/or interests.
            The French were the worst (ducking) lol
            Those 1 hour coffee breaks.. sheesh

          • Quax

            October 27, 2012 at 5:42 am

            RonB, I took a sick day today 🙂

  32. Jami

    October 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    “The Safety Certificate is real evidence…”

    Of what? Oh yes – you still live in that dream where a safety certificate somehow implies the certified thing actually works as advertised (or at all).

  33. GreenWin

    October 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    And miraculously, as if to second my observations – Nature journal reports ever greater problems at hot fusion’s Waterloo – ITER:

    “But so far, ITER has been consuming mostly money and time. Since seven international partners signed up to the project in 2006, the price has roughly tripled to around €15 billion (US$19.4 billion), and the original date of completion has slipped by four years to late 2020.”

    Fusion Project Struggles to put the Pieces Together Contracting woes may cause further delays for €15 billion ITER effort.

    http://www.nature.com/news/fusion-project-struggles-to-put-the-pieces-together-1.11669

    Sheesh, this is like being the Master of the Universe.

    • Frank

      October 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm

      No doubt – as the ITER project continues, you will get more reports about setbacks. For such a challenging experiment, that’s not hard to predict.
      You can presume that there are even groups which would like to see the ITER project fail – for their own benefit.
      But don’t worry – it will keep going. 😉

      • GreenWin

        October 26, 2012 at 11:20 pm

        I am certain to get more reports of ITER setbacks. And yes, there are many energy execs & scientists that want to see ITER fail. And, no, I do not worry. On the contrary, I am rather enthused!

        Remember, the Island awaits.

      • Shane D.

        October 27, 2012 at 1:22 am

        Frank,

        Replacing ITER with LENR… here is your same post:

        No doubt – as the LENR project continues, you will get more reports about setbacks. For such a challenging experiment, that’s not hard to predict.

        You can presume that there are even groups which would like to see the LENR project fail – for their own benefit.

        But don’t worry – it will keep going.

        • Frank

          October 27, 2012 at 2:16 am

          Actually, I do worry – on how it’s going.
          My worries about those “reports of an anomalous heat effect” are:
          1.) Is it real, or is there just an error in the measurements ?
          2.) In case that there is a real energy release, is it in a range that it is economic to harvest this energy ?
          3.) If there is research in that field, will it be done in a scientific way, or will this field be the playground for scammers and individuals, who just want to make a pleasant living on others (and science) costs.

  34. Quax

    October 26, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Jami, you are of course correct when you write

    But most of the scientists I know didn’t put in all the effort because they wanted to stay rooted in the status quo. They all want to be on the cutting edge and discover something new and unique. They don’t want to parrot what everybody could google in a couple of hours for the rest of their lives.

    But this doesn’t remove the human factor, and physicist are just as receptive to groupthink and the mind projection fallacy as the rest of the population. Of course avid readers of the comments section here know that just as with Josephson going all quantum hippie – I always blame Bohr for this.

    • RonB

      October 27, 2012 at 1:05 am

      Quax,
      Pretend you’re a atomic particle. What happens when you get really close to the coulomb battier but don’t penetrate it? Kinda like bumping the bottom of your Lamborghini on a tall manhole cover at 200kph. Do you think there would be sparks?
      I don’t know enough to know if that’s a really dumb question but just suppose there was a way.

      • Quax

        October 27, 2012 at 4:02 am

        RonB, several scenarios:

        (1) You either have the energy to overcome the barrier -> hot fusion (assuming straight arrow bull’s eye hit otherwise the particle just scatters)

        (2) You’re energy is way to low, and then you bounce like on trampoline -> particle back-scattering

        (3) The next option is the most interesting one, as it’ll equate to your Lamborgini just tunneling through unscathed.

        If you get long enough close enough to the potential barrier you could get tunnel effects. I.e. a reasonable probability for fusion events. That’s why Defkalion is always going on about Rydberg atoms, to somehow convince us that that’ll happen. Problem is nobody else has seen anything like this with just straight unambiguous Rydberg atom experiments. And there have been some crazy inflated Rydberg atoms, that almost allow to assign an actual particle orbital to the outer electron.

        Defkalion’s argument then presumes extreme eccentricities of these “orbits” to argue for a relevant tunnel effect. Sounds a bit too much like Star Track science. And I doubt that the numbers would hold up. After all, in the end there is a non-vanishing probability that your coffee cup could tunnel through the table. Yet, outside of computer games you’d have to wait several times the life-span of the universe to ever have a chance to observe anything like it. On the other hand in other settings the tunnel effect is very noticeable e.g. the increasing leak current of modern CPUs and of course deliberately exploited in Josephson junctions 🙂

        • popeye

          October 28, 2012 at 12:10 am

          Quax posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:02 am:

          several scenarios:
          (1) You either have the energy to overcome the barrier -> hot fusion (assuming straight arrow bull’s eye hit otherwise the particle just scatters)
          (2) You’re energy is way to low, and then you bounce like on trampoline -> particle back-scattering

          Not really like a trampoline, since the scattering will be in all directions, and there is no gravity pulling the particle back.

          (3) The next option is the most interesting one, as it’ll equate to your Lamborgini just tunneling through unscathed.
          If you get long enough close enough to the potential barrier you could get tunnel effects. I.e. a reasonable probability for fusion events.

          Option 1 never occurs in nature (maybe in accelerators). There is a vanishing probability that particles have enough energy to *exceed* the Coulomb barrier potential. Fusion in stars is basically all tunneling. Tunneling is not some mysterious effect; the probability can be calculated precisely. For D-D fusion, the probability for tunneling becomes appreciable at about 50 keV, corresponding to temperatures in the range of a hundred million degrees. But it’s easy to induce fusion on the bench top with a 50 kV power supply, and you can buy such devices off the shelf as commercial neutron sources.

  35. daniel maris

    October 27, 2012 at 12:52 am

    From the billing for ICCF 18 (University of Missouri):

    “There have also been developments and confirmations of nuclear process in other condensed matter systems, and many of these reports come from outside the traditional ICCF Community. For example, NASA, using its FERMI gamma burst satellite has confirmed antimatter ejections from major thunderstorms many hundreds of times.”

    Does anyone have an explanation for those thunderstorm phenomena that doesn’t favour LENR being a real phenomenon.

    • RonB

      October 27, 2012 at 1:13 am

      It would be fun to go to that conference. Is anyone here going?
      It’s funny that the “show me” state is the one that seems to be moving forward in LENR research. GOOOO Missouri!

    • Quax

      October 27, 2012 at 4:13 am

      daniel maris, I’d favor the Papp engine effect 🙂

      There is not enough observational data yet to have a consensus on what is happening, but most explanations do not involve new physics such as LENR.

      • daniel maris

        October 28, 2012 at 1:48 am

        Thanks for the reference Quax. V. interesting.

    • popeye

      October 28, 2012 at 12:07 am

      daniel maris posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:52 am:

      From the billing for ICCF 18 (University of Missouri):
      “There have also been developments and confirmations of nuclear process in other condensed matter systems, and many of these reports come from outside the traditional ICCF Community. For example, NASA, using its FERMI gamma burst satellite has confirmed antimatter ejections from major thunderstorms many hundreds of times.”
      Does anyone have an explanation for those thunderstorm phenomena that doesn’t favour LENR being a real phenomenon.

      As a generic term, LENR is a real phenomenon, if by “low energy” you mean low (non-stellar) temperature. Nuclear reactions occur spontaneously at low temperatures in any radioactive material. Fission can be induced to occur at high rates by suitable arrangement of fissile isotopes (like U235) and a moderator. Reactions can be induced by accelerating particles to sufficiently high energy using electric fields. This is done in commercial neutron sources which induce D-D or D-T fusion by accelerating D or T into metal hydrides, and of course in all particle-accelerator experiments. It is also the principle of pyroelectric fusion.

      So, by that definition, the thunderstorm phenomena are undoubtedly LENR. The favored explanation for the gammas (which presumably go on to cause reactions that produce the positrons) is that large bursts of electrons are accelerated in high electric fields, and emit gamma rays during deceleration (Bremsstrahlung). But it says nothing about the likelihood of nuclear reactions in non-radioactive metal hydrides — the thing normally referred to be the term LENR.

      • daniel maris

        October 28, 2012 at 1:49 am

        Thanks Popeye for the clarification. V. helpful.

  36. Quax

    October 27, 2012 at 3:41 am

    Shane D., it’s very difficult to kick popeye’s ass on a substantial level. He’s extremely well organised, seems to be a quite experienced experimentalist and is sharp as a whip.

    If I had to pick somebody maybe one of the SPAWAR folks could hold their own. But they not only need the goods but also a combative personality. I don’t know if Ransompw could make a good scientist, but popeye certainly loves arguing as much as the brightest lawyer.

    But what should be understood, is that it is a terrible waste if popeye pulls apart a paper in this forum. It’ll be much more useful if this feedback went back to the LENR researchers so that they can address them and improve their work.

    If they cannot improve it that’ll also be a result. In a perfect world we’d then get a report detailing what caused the original measurements that were originally attributed to LENR.

    That’s why I wish this wasn’t such a charged issue and there actually was some research conducted in this field by somebody without a rather obviously pre-conceived notion. So far Joe Zawodny seems to come closest to this ideal.

    • GreenWin

      October 27, 2012 at 4:24 am

      Unfortunately Quax, as seen in Popee’s attempt to defend your ridiculous claim re: lack of “top notch LENR researchers,” popee succumbs to his affliction – narcissistic personality disorder.

      Popee, wants desperately to be perceived as a wise and winsome critic. He is not. Because amongst other things, he lacks the skill of self-editing. It takes Popee ten paragraphs to construct a diatribe. Human beings intuit ideas without need for voluminous pecking and scratching. Which suggests for all Popee’s technical acumen, he grossly lacks communicative skills.

      These are lessons mechanical intelligences must learn. Should they not. They will perish. Or be relegated to IGZ.

      • popeye

        October 28, 2012 at 12:15 am

        GreenWin posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:24 am:

        Unfortunately Quax, as seen in Popee’s attempt to defend your ridiculous claim

        Nope. I didn’t attempt to defend Quax’s claim. I attempted — and succeeded — at exposing your errors in fact regarding Nobel laureates, your back-firing logic, and now your dishonesty in trying to weasel out of your clear errors.

    • spacegoat

      October 27, 2012 at 8:59 am

      “It’ll be much more useful if this feedback went back to the LENR researchers so that they can address them and improve their work.”

      Jay2011 gave a critique above of the MFMP.
      Maybe Popeye prefers to keep a good argument going. Killing LENR through him assisting to demonstrate artifacts in the MFMP would mean the end of his blogging here. 🙂

  37. spacegoat

    October 27, 2012 at 8:59 am

    @JNewman
    “Or do you think Rossi, DGT, Nanospire, and the other cold fusion entrepreneurs are full of baloney? I mean, if these people are about to launch products, why do we need to fund a bunch of research? They can fund it themselves once those massive profits start rolling in.”

    You are right. 🙂

    The only cases I am familiar with are DGT/Rossi. It appears they may have enhanced somewhat the work of Piantelli and then rushed prematurely to market, very prematurely in the case of master blogger Rossi. Taking a vehicle analogy, they’ve discovered the principle of a carburettor but lack combustion science, piston and drive train engineering.

    • JNewman

      October 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      Of course there is no evidence at all that Rossi and DGT have rushed to market in the sense that they actually have anything for sale. They have rushed to the Internet and perhaps to investors of one stripe or another.

  38. Jami

    October 27, 2012 at 10:20 am

    “The upper 50%?”

    The major problem with LENR research is the absence of convincing work. I don’t care whether Storms could kick Popeye’s (or Cude’s) ass in a discussion. I doubt it. But that wouldn’t be the point anyway. As long as LENR believers can’t point out at least one convincing paper, it doesn’t matter who the “top 50%” are or how many experiments they claim were successful or what they did in their previous lives. They’ve got to show results – and so far they didn’t. If Storms had convincing arguments countering the criticisms against his latest output – then why did he not bother putting them in there? Its not like we’re nitpicking about irrelevancies here. The weak points are obvious and will come up during review as sure as night follows day (if the paper even gets that far).

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 27, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Jami you posted “convincing work” and I was wondering if you included the Celani work and it’s attempt to be replicated by the MF quantum heat site.

      Is that not convincing work? How about Storms, Zawodny, Focardi, Heisenberg,Schrodinger,Planck, Feynman,Josephson,Clark,Casimir Lipschitz. Those are some pretty convincing works from some researchers who were onto these LENR types of reactions years ago.

      • Jami

        October 27, 2012 at 11:09 am

        “Those are some pretty convincing works from some researchers who were onto these LENR types of reactions years ago.”

        Got a link for a Heisenberg or Planck or Feynman or Josephson paper detailing a successful cold fusion experiment? Thought not.

        There’s a certain difference between Schwinger not categorically ruling out the possibility of cold fusion and proving it to be real. It may not be readily apparent for CF believers – but it is there.

        • Alain

          October 27, 2012 at 11:19 am

          there is convincing papers snce long.

          what is missing is paper that YOU accept.

          NONE can.

          see McKubre isothermal calorimetry , see NASA GRC gas permeation, see Iwamura, see Spawar… take He4/heat correlation papers like the Report 41 of ENEA (you will find those storyon lenrforum.eu and in many of my message. do your homework please. I’m sure you won’t and will find an excuse.)
          and hundred other

          each is convincing.

          you simply, like many, are blind.
          POINT.

          • popeye

            October 28, 2012 at 12:34 am

            Alain posted on October 27, 2012 at 11:19 am:

            there is convincing papers snce long.
            what is missing is paper that YOU accept.

            What is missing is a paper that scientists outside the LENR community accept. Or a LENR experiment that makes enough power to power itself.

            see McKubre isothermal calorimetry , see NASA GRC gas permeation, see Iwamura, see Spawar… take He4/heat correlation papers like the Report 41 of ENEA (you will find those storyon lenrforum.eu and in many of my message. do your homework please.

            McKubre’s results were in the low watt range, and evidently didn’t convince him, since he now goes around endorsing results from other groups like Energetics and Brillouin, or supporting claims of Papp-type phenomena.

            NASA GRC results were not compelling according to the authors.

            Iwamura results were not convincing enough to be selected by Hagelstein and McKubre for the presentation to the 2004 DOE panel. And they were not compelling enough for Iwamura to do any obvious followups.

            SPAWAR was not replicated under peer-review by any other group, and the research was shut down by SPAWAR.

            Report 41 got 10 times more helium than expected by the heat. That’s not correlation, that’s a mistake. Rubbia went on to study thorium after that paper.

            each is convincing.

            None are convincing.

          • Alain

            October 28, 2012 at 7:21 am

            problem with mckubre is not that it did not convince him, but that nobody accepted despite good protocol.
            CEA Grenoble repeated similar experiments with better procision and confimed all…

            ther is clear pathology, and the scientist around try to mae even better, but it is always rejected.

            Iwamura and Spawar was replicated, and peer review Spawar have obtaines is enough…
            note alos that in that domain the peer review is pathologic…

            about ENEA and He4 report, what theory have you validated that exclude He4/heat correlation ?
            the correlation is hard to measure, but ther are still enough results to say it is replicated…

            you rebuttal is a mix of reasoning errors, using the pathology of mainstream to justify the result of that pathology.

            it is a vicious circle. nothing can convince you, since if something can, you will reject it because it is said by people that accept LENR, and use the rejection of mainstream to prove that mainstream is right…

            can’t you see your reasoning ?

        • Alain

          October 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm

          no need of theory, there is measure.
          for old CF, lookt at SternGlass experiments and Einstein trying to understand… with similare ideas as Aratta
          http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=736

          of course, unlike the hundred of experimental results since 89, those results were less convincing, yet enough for Einstein to investigate. However too hard to understand by Einstein, and too annoying for Sternglass to pursue.

          what explain LENR rejection is laziness.

          • Quax

            October 27, 2012 at 3:39 pm

            Alain,

            theorists are often tempted to rush in and to try to explain a new phenomenon without waiting to see if it can be replicated.

            Gives them a head-start if it turns out to be for real 🙂

            That is why appealing to theoretical physicists as authorities on LENR phenomenology is not very convincing at the best of times.

          • popeye

            October 28, 2012 at 12:38 am

            lain posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm:

            
for old CF, lookt at SternGlass experiments and Einstein trying to understand…

            Likewise, when P&F first announced, many top physicists tried to understand. A panel was convened to try to understand. And like Einstein, they soon abandoned it for lack of good evidence.

          • Quax

            October 28, 2012 at 1:10 am

            Popeye, the Sternglass story transpired 1951. According to Sternglass Einstein encouraged him “to be stubborn” and publish the strange results.

            Since we only have his word and no other source to corroborate the story it is a bit absurd for you to write that Einstein “abandoned it for lack of good evidence”.

            After all Einstein abandoned this plane of existence a short four years later.

            Do you have any other sources that shed light on this strange story?

          • popeye

            October 28, 2012 at 4:27 am

            Bad wording. I meant: They considered the evidence to be lacking, and like Einstein (allegedly), soon abandoned it.

            I don’t know if the story’s true, and if so, why Einstein abandoned it. But it was unlike him to abandon revolutionary phenomena, if he thought they were real. And he was active until his death 4 years later. But maybe, no matter how revolutionary, he didn’t think it important enough to displace his interest in a grand unified theory.

          • Alain

            October 28, 2012 at 7:24 am

            einstein did not abandon sternglass problem…
            he just failed to explain, and died.

            sternglass abandonned because it was too hard to interpret and useless.. not false.

            laziness.
            ther was crear result in industrail labe, japanese mostly, but without usable results most sponsor abandonned or get in stealth mode (like the japanese, or SRI)

            so hard to understand ?
            or don’t you refuse to understand?

      • popeye

        October 28, 2012 at 12:21 am

        Dale G. Basgall posted on October 27, 2012 at 10:48 am:

        Jami you posted “convincing work” and I was wondering if you included the Celani work and it’s attempt to be replicated by the MF quantum heat site. Is that not convincing work?

        The Celani work used inferior calorimetry, but he promised flow calorimetry and a self-sustaining demo real soon now. Stay tuned.

        How about Storms, Zawodny, Focardi, Heisenberg,Schrodinger,Planck, Feynman,Josephson,Clark,Casimir Lipschitz. Those are some pretty convincing works from some researchers who were onto these LENR types of reactions years ago.

        I’ve seen *un*convincing work from Storms and Focardi, nothing (experimental) from Zawodny (except proposals), and nothing at all from the others. You’ll have to bring us plebes up to speed on Planck’s LENR work.

        • Quax

          October 28, 2012 at 1:18 am

          Popeye, are you seriously suggesting that you are unfamiliar with Planck’s early work to explain the ultraviolet catastrophe with a runaway LENR reaction?

          I am stunned, and here I’ve been praising your physics acumen all along …

    • Shane D.

      October 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm

      Jami,

      OK, you dismiss my “upper 50%” argument as unimportant. Good enough. Instead, you rightfully focus on the quality of the LENR experiments, and by that measure you say believers can’t point out “one convincing paper”.

      I really don’t know if that is true? Yes, I can read Jay, Quax, you, popeye, Al and JN who claim these experiments lack quality. But then again, I can just as easily refer to others such McCubre, Celani, Bushnell, Duncan, Storms etc who say otherwise… who to believe?

      It is interesting that two different, opposite ideology (not Quax and Jay), groups could look at the same data, same experiment, and come to such different conclusions, but that seems to be the case. What is up with you scientists?

      This reminds me of the MIT F/P replication back in 1989 -the “negative study” that slammed shut the lid on cold fusion because it showed no excess heat. Who could argue with a MIT scentist?… Why they are superscientists!

      Then come to find out later that the scientist doing the test knew little of of calorimetry. Otherwise it was a low quality experiment, probably did show exces heat, but thats OK… it was a MIT guy and to this day the mainstream accepts his conclusions.

      Funny… today we actually have three MIT scientists on board with LENR (Hagelstein, Ahern, Scwhartz) and no one wants to believe them.

      • Quax

        October 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm

        Shane D.,

        seems to me I should stress the following disclaimer: I have a M.S. degree in physics and have been keeping up to some extend with current research but I am not a scientist. I only play one on this blog 🙂

        Don’t want to give you the impression that I represent anything or anybody beyond myself.

        Anything I write here is simple my more or less well reasoned and informed opinion.

      • popeye

        October 28, 2012 at 1:22 am

        Shane D. posted on October 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm:

        I really don’t know if that is true? Yes, I can read Jay, Quax, you, popeye, Al and JN who claim these experiments lack quality. But then again, I can just as easily refer to others such McCubre, Celani, Bushnell, Duncan, Storms etc who say otherwise… who to believe?

        Believe the credentialed experts who clearly consider the experiments to lack quality. In addition to saying the evidence for nuclear effects was not conclusive, the 2004 DOE panel complained of low quality of the submissions. Even Nagel — an advocate — in a scientific review criticizes the quality of the LENR literature, giving elementary pointers to improve the work. The failure of the papers to get published in prominent journals is a clear indication that experts consider the quality to be low.

        It’s not a few internet no-names agains the best cold fusion researchers. It’s the entire scientific establishment against them. It’s true, as ransompw frequently says, most are not familiar with the recent developments. But, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if the dramatic claims of cold fusion had merit, definitive evidence would not remain hidden, and moreover, scientific opinion is sampled whenever articles are submitted to journals, and proposals to granting agencies, and these samples are consistently negative.

        It is interesting that two different, opposite ideology (not Quax and Jay), groups could look at the same data, same experiment, and come to such different conclusions, but that seems to be the case. What is up with you scientists?

        It’s pretty common in this sort of fringe science. It happened for N-rays and polywater. I happens in homeopathy and some other alternative medicines. It happens in paranormal research like dowsing (recently claimed in scientific literature) and the sort of research Josephson does. It happens in perpetual motion claims, although in that case, there is very little support beyond the truly fringe scientists — well, until McKubre started singing its praises.

        This reminds me of the MIT F/P replication back in 1989 -the “negative study” that slammed shut the lid on cold fusion because it showed no excess heat. Who could argue with a MIT scentist?… Why they are superscientists!
        Then come to find out later that the scientist doing the test knew little of of calorimetry. Otherwise it was a low quality experiment, probably did show exces heat, but thats OK… it was a MIT guy and to this day the mainstream accepts his conclusions.

        This idea that a single flawed experiment slammed the lid on cold fusion is a fantasy of True Believers to help rationalize their belief.

        First, the experiment, even if you accept Mallove’s claims, was far from evidence *for* cold fusion.

        Second, the negative recommendations from ERAB were based on many other negative results, as well as an analysis of the claimed positive results. And the panel had many members who had no stake in hot fusion.

        Third, in spite of ERAB, many “top-notch” scientists worked on it for another 24 years, with substantial funding. In particular, P&F had a decade with $50M dollars to prove a claim they made using only $100k. No lid from erab could have stopped Toyota from expoiting the effect, if real.

        Funny… today we actually have three MIT scientists on board with LENR (Hagelstein, Ahern, Scwhartz) and no one wants to believe them.

        Actually, only one is an MIT scientist. The others are graduates of MIT, but don’t work there now. Anyway, it kind of contradicts your thesis. It wasn’t MIT’s prestige that closed the lid, or Hagelstein would be able to open it. It was the weight of the evidence.

  39. Jami

    October 27, 2012 at 10:30 am

    “No one had the ability to duplicate P & F experiment until 92 but this same scientific community determined in 1989 that P & F were delusional and/or incompetent and Cold Fusion was not worth funding experimentally. That really says it all.”

    You didn’t read my post. I said not all of them could replicate P&F 1:1 because they didn’t have all the information. But even those that DID have full disclosure from P&F AND their equipment (Harwell Lab) failed. Had they succeeded and the others had failed, you’d have a point. But nobody, including P&F, ever succeeded.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      Jami: Your statement “No one had the ability to duplicate P & F experiment until 92 but this same scientific community determined in 1989 that P & F were delusional and/or incompetent and Cold Fusion was not worth funding experimentally. That really says it all.”, and should read…

      “No one with the ability came forward” , the reason is there are those with the ability to make LENR and cold fusion operate efficiently, the problem is they ask themselves why, for what? The rest should be obvious to you. Why work for savages?

  40. Methusela

    October 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Comment on coldfusionnow.org.

    July 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM by Edmund Storms:

    The conflict between Dr. Shanahan and myself along with the entire CF community is easy to explain – he and I are looking at two different realities. I base my reality on the hundreds of studies showing excess heat and nuclear products. From these several thousands papers I conclude that LENR is a real phenomenon during which nuclear reactions make heat by a unique process. Dr. Shanahan appears to base his reality on a few measurements of heat.

    I ignore his paper and critique because he is simply ignorant of what has been discovered or chooses to ignore it. My goal is not to convert everyone to accepting my reality – this would be impossible.

    My goal is to make information and understanding available so that people with an interest and an open mind can get the facts, from which they can form their own opinions. Dr. Shanahan has obviously not taken advantage of this information.

    The stakes are high because LENR is a source of clean and inexpensive energy; a kind of energy the world desperately needs. Rejecting development of such an energy source is irresponsible.

    In addition, the mechanism is clearly novel, which opens new windows into how nuclear reactions can occur. Only a fool would turn their back on something so important no matter how unlikely they think the claims might be.

    • Quax

      October 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Not very helpful attitudes on either side. Reminds me of when my mother in law tries to end any disagreement with “we just have to agree to disagree”.

      The latter might be OK to keep family peace but it really is not how I think science is supposed to work. If experimentalists cannot agree on a common reality we may as well rename the entire field experimental meta-physics.

    • popeye

      October 28, 2012 at 12:54 am

      Methusela posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm:

      Comment on coldfusionnow.org.
      July 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM by Edmund Storms:
      The conflict between Dr. Shanahan and myself along with the entire CF community is easy to explain – he and I are looking at two different realities. I base my reality on the hundreds of studies showing excess heat and nuclear products. From these several thousands papers I conclude that LENR is a real phenomenon during which nuclear reactions make heat by a unique process.

      Thousands of marginal results are the refuge of the pathological scientist. Thousands of sightings of the Loch Ness monster can’t all be wrong. Thousands of alien abductions can’t all be made up. Thousands of cures from a vague sense of unease by sugar pills can’t all be psychological. Turns out, they can.

      If there were one good experiment with unequivocal evidence, Storms would not need to count papers. No one says high Tc superconductivity must be right because there are more than 100,000 papers on it. You can order one from Edmund Scientific, get some liquid nitrogen from your nearest physics department, and prove it to yourself.

      Only a fool would turn their back on something so important no matter how unlikely they think the claims might be.

      Really? No matter how unlikely? That sounds like a claim from someone innumerate; not from a scientist. Douglas Morrison used to poke fun at claims like this. He estimated the likelihood to be 10^-50. That’s unlikely enough to turn your back on it.

      So, according to Storms, Gell-Mann and Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox (among many others) are fools. According to Gell-Mann, Storms’ ideas are full of baloney. Let’s see, Gell-Mann gave us quarks. Storms? A bunch of reviews of fringe science. I’m gonna go with Gell-Mann on this one.

  41. Methusela

    October 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    BTW, read the exchange in the comments at http://www.coldfusionnow.org/melvin-miles-on-calorimetry

    Compare and contrast the Kirk Shanahan style there to the Popeye style here and the Cude style elsewhere.

    One and the same!

    • daniel maris

      October 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      I think you are on to something there.

      • spacegoat

        October 27, 2012 at 2:17 pm

        High probability it is the same guy. Kirk L. Shanahan wrecking ball (phrase, courtesy Jay2011) is all over the Internet:

        http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2010/EM/c0em00267d
        http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2010/EM/c001299h

        The same level of knowledge, the same style the same intention.

        I wish more power to his elbow. He has passion, knowledge and a good style.

        LENR researchers DO need to be more rigorous and standardized in their approaches.

        The MFMP was supposed to be an effort by the LENR community. So why is it that casual posters are critiquing their experimental setup (see above). Where is the “LENR community”. Where are Storms, McKubre, etc?

        Let’s have a standard : approach(s), tools, methods, mathematical and statistical support. Each working in their corner and grandstanding at each ICCF conference is not progressing so well. How about a little concerted effort and pooling of knowledge supported by modern IT tools.

        • RonB

          October 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm

          Well said Spacegoat!!

          • Quax

            October 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm

            Indeed, 2nd that.

        • Al Potenza

          October 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm

          Guessing who anonymous posters are seems to be one of the many strange habits of believers. In most cases, one can’t tell. All such guesses show is how gullible and ineffective you are.

          Also it makes no difference. Deal with the issues and facts the post raises. If you can!

        • Jay2011

          October 27, 2012 at 11:27 pm

          Agree regarding MFMP, and it would be great to see some of the LENR folks sharing their expertise.

          Regarding Popeye’s wrecking ball, what I meant was that one better have a scaffolding of real evidence to avoid seeing one’s argument turn into a pile of rubble. Couldn’t say whether Popeye and Shanahan are one and the same or not, not that it really matters. Although the style is a bit similar, I’d be rather surprised. Shanahan is a chemist, and is primarily focused on CF calorimetry issues. I always took Popeye to be a physicist, although I could be wrong.

          Regarding Shanahan vs. Storms, I don’t think Storms comes across that well. There’s a similar Shanahan vs. Krivit exchange, and Krivit doesn’t come across that well either. Both Storms and Krivit appear to avoid a debate on the technical details and try to turn the exchange into a meta-issue debate, using the tactic of claiming that Shanahan picks and chooses experiments to tear apart but ignores the “thousands of experiments” that demonstrate LENR anomalies. Shanahan’s response, reasonably, is “OK, I picked the few examples I could find that actually presented sufficient data that one could make an independent analysis. If you have other papers you would rather have me look at instead, please provide a reference.” To which Storms basically says “that’s not my job.” Big copout.

          Having plowed through numerous papers on Rothwell’s website I can sympathize with Shanahan. Storms may be right and Shanahan may be wrong about some of these experiments, but one can’t tell from the scant presentations, and Storms is not serving as a good advocate to the scientific community. His arguments appear more aligned to the investment community to me, without enough meat for a scientist to bite into.

    • JNewman

      October 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      By style you must mean using actual facts to make one’s points instead of name-calling and sneering. Well, there must be only one person capable of that. Great detective work!

      • Methusela

        October 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm

        Rubbish. He name calls and sneers, as do you, but in between the lines.

        • Quax

          October 27, 2012 at 3:57 pm

          Methusela, yes, popeye can be vicious, and it hurts more due to the depth of his arguments rooted in facts.

          Nevertheless, I content he’d be more effective if he toned done the personal attacks.

    • Frank

      October 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      Since you have mentioned Dr. Kirk Shanahan, here some new reading material for you:
      “A Realistic Examination of Cold Fusion Claims 24 Years Later”
      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/preview?pli=1

      • Quax

        October 27, 2012 at 4:04 pm

        Frank, thanks for the link.

        Have to say, Dr. Storm doesn’t look very good here. He essentially dismisses well reasoned critique in the same fashion that the LENR folks always complainted the mainstream science ignored them.

        Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

        • Methusela

          October 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm

          Rubbish. He dismisses it because shanahan is a lunatic:

          From coldfusionnow.org:

          July 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM Edmund Storms

          The conflict between Dr. Shanahan and myself along with the entire CF community is easy to explain – he and I are looking at two different realities. I base my reality on the hundreds of studies showing excess heat and nuclear products. From these several thousands papers I conclude that LENR is a real phenomenon during which nuclear reactions make heat by a unique process. Dr. Shanahan appears to base his reality on a few measurements of heat.

          I ignore his paper and critique because he is simply ignorant of what has been discovered or chooses to ignore it. My goal is not to convert everyone to accepting my reality – this would be impossible.

          My goal is to make information and understanding available so that people with an interest and an open mind can get the facts, from which they can form their own opinions. Dr. Shanahan has obviously not taken advantage of this information.

          The stakes are high because LENR is a source of clean and inexpensive energy; a kind of energy the world desperately needs. Rejecting development of such an energy source is irresponsible.

          In addition, the mechanism is clearly novel, which opens new windows into how nuclear reactions can occur. Only a fool would turn their back on something so important no matter how unlikely they think the claims might be.

          Read also this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72407.html

          • Quax

            October 27, 2012 at 4:21 pm

            Methusela, not so fast, I have to look at his papers, but I haven’t see anything unreasonable yet.

            If his papers are anything like popeye’s criticisms they are very well founded and the LENR researchers should be greatful for the feedback to improve their experimental set-up. This is after all the way science is supposed to work. Just as Dr. Shanahan wrote:

            Unfortunately, another development over the preceding several years has been the disappearance of
            negative commentary on the scientific basis of the field. This has occurred because the scientificmainline had concluded by c. 1992 that the field was an example of ‘pathological science’. Due to that,research was discouraged in the area and in fact ‘cold fusion’ publications were frowned upon. This onlyled to the claims of suppression by advocates. In fact there is some limited truth to this statement. Thisauthor, being one of the only remaining critics of the field, has suffered the same consequences forattempting to publish articles critical of LENR. This is a failure on the part of the mainlineestablishment, as the results developed out of the LENR research do in fact show something ishappening to produce signals which might be interpreted as supporting nuclear reactions (which is whatencourages and sustains LENR researchers), but which can also be interpreted via a set of unique andinteresting conventional processes.Unfortunately, another development over the preceding several years has been the disappearance ofnegative commentary on the scientific basis of the field. This has occurred because the scientificmainline had concluded by c. 1992 that the field was an example of ‘pathological science’. Due to that,research was discouraged in the area and in fact ‘cold fusion’ publications were frowned upon. This onlyled to the claims of suppression by advocates. In fact there is some limited truth to this statement. Thisauthor, being one of the only remaining critics of the field, has suffered the same consequences forattempting to publish articles critical of LENR. This is a failure on the part of the mainlineestablishment, as the results developed out of the LENR research do in fact show something ishappening to produce signals which might be interpreted as supporting nuclear reactions (which is whatencourages and sustains LENR researchers), but which can also be interpreted via a set of unique andinteresting conventional processes.

          • Quax

            October 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm

            Admin if you are still around, please feel free to delete above comment. The copy and paste of the quote is terribly mangled – my Laptop battery died just when I tried to fix it.

            F****** hate batteries – for that reason alone I wished LENR was real.

  42. Quax

    October 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    If popeye was Kirk Shanahan I have to wonder why he wouldn’t unload even more, shielded by anonymity. If I was Kirk Shanahan I’d be pissed at the LENR research community.

    I wasn’t aware of his work until now.

  43. Shane D.

    October 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Jed Rothwell isn’t too impressd by Shanahan:

    Shanahan’s conclusions are completely unjustified. He thinks that his
    opinion — mere opinion — automatically overrules rigorously peer-reviewed
    experimental results published in major journals. Results obtained by
    hundreds of distinguished experts from Los Alamos, BARC, the Princeton
    Plasma Fusion Lab and other world-class labs. Despite his ego, Shanahan
    does not know better than these people. The “reasons” given in his paper
    would never pass peer-review.

    Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major
    laboratories. Here is the latest irrefutable result, from the Naval
    Research Laboratory:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/D

    Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical Experiments

    Conclusions:

    * Large excess power (≥ 1kJ) events generated in 5% of Pd90Rh10 cathodes

    * Failed to disprove these results –> excess heat results observed at NRL
    are real!

    Cells produced 40 times more output than input, and the heat far exceeded
    the limits of chemistry.

    Gibbs’ demand that researchers produce practical devices is unfair and
    unrealistic given the lack of funding and the academic politics.

    • Quax

      October 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      Shane D, your link to the paper is broken, please re-post.

      • Shane D.

        October 27, 2012 at 5:33 pm

        Quax,

        Sorry, Jeds post referenced it incomplete also.

        Sure it wouldn’t be hard to track.

      • Dale G. Basgall

        October 27, 2012 at 6:41 pm

        Quax; the comment above from you did not have a reply link so I am adding to this one.

        You posted “F****** hate batteries – for that reason alone I wished LENR was real.”

        You must live where AC current is available and reliable. I do not see batteries as failures or problems because if it were not for DC approximately 80% of the people where I live would have no electrical power.

        Nonetheless subs under the ice are equipped with thousands of batteries, they work fine for powering a sub. My mouse my laptop and many other items are powered by batteries.

        LENR when made available as a consumer product will charge up a battery bank and most likely have some type of battery backup system, like all our fridges should but don’t. People will wish they had geared up to store electrical energy instead of being vulnerable to loosing their food from lack of cooling and ability to stay warm and cook food due to lack of heat.

        Just a different awareness here I guess, for Hawaii the LENR would be a great asset to have power to live easier.

        • Quax

          October 27, 2012 at 6:49 pm

          Dale, I just hate batteries because they always run out on me in the most inopportune moments
          🙂

          And just as most humans they don’t age well.

          Would love to have a nuclear battery for my Laptop.

    • Al Potenza

      October 27, 2012 at 6:09 pm

      Jed Rothwell is notoriously gullible. I’m pretty sure he still thinks Defkalion and Rossi are for real. At least, that’s what I see him write about on the Vortex web site.

      I don’t have time to read the very long piece of work by Shanahan though I am glad he wrote it. He seems to have thought through the problem at length though he didn’t address the more recent claims of Miley, Rossi, Defkalion, Nanospire, Swartz and Brillouin, to name a few. At least I don’t think he did– as I said, I only briefly skimmed the paper.

    • popeye

      October 28, 2012 at 5:24 am

      Shane D. posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm:

      Jed Rothwell isn’t too impressd by Shanahan:

      […] rigorously peer-reviewed experimental results published in major journals.
      […] Here is the latest irrefutable result, from the Naval
Research Laboratory: […]

      True to form, Rothwell justifies the field by all the peer-reviewed papers, and then when he actually cites something, it is not peer-reviewed, and it’s not even a paper. It’s a set of slides intended to be accompanied by commentary, and therefore is incomplete, almost by definition. Such a thing cannot be considered “irrefutable” by any standard.

      He himself has lamented the fact that results in cold fusion never stand out, and so these rigorously peer-reviewed papers remain inconclusive.

      And he has said “Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. […] That test is irrefutable by first principles.” Which means all those peer-reviewed papers by all those distinguished experts are inferior to Rossi’s results, in Rothwell’s opinion. The obvious holes in Rossi’s demos reveal Rothwell’s gullibility, and if he ever agrees Rossi failed, he will have to admit the body of LENR literature is a failure.

      If Rothwell believes Rossi’s results are irrefutable, why is he citing the NRL results now? The NRL claimed some tens of kJ in their experiments, about the amount of energy in a drop of gasoline. They say chemical sources are ruled out, but that seems difficult to accept. The power levels are in the range of a few watts. Compared to Rossi, if you believe him, that seems pretty unimpressive.

      The reproducibility in the NRL results is a whopping 5%. What happened to all those claims of *improving* reproducibility? That definitely sounds worse than most of the claims from the 90s in power, energy, and reproducibility.

  44. Al Potenza

    October 27, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Try this for Rothwell’s link to the Dominguez paper:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DominguezDanomalousr.pdf

    As usual, I can’t tell from the PDF slides what these people did or how they did it! I can’t even tell what the coordinate axes are on their graphs! This is good science and the best Rothwell can find? I think it’s not very great.

    Maybe someone can explain what the graphs mean? I doubt it!

    • Quax

      October 27, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      Well, it is a presentation not a paper. Presumably there’d be some oratory explanations along with the graphs.

      Presentations are great and all, but they are no substitute for a paper.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      Al it appears that they needed the room for the bites or something because those graphs appear they ran out of room so piled an additional graph on the right side.

      Also it appears after 100’s of experiments that power in is = to power out.

  45. Frank

    October 27, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Back to the e-cat fun:
    MaxS raised a good question on e-catworld.com.
    There you can find now a transcript of the presentation given by Gianvico Pirazzini.
    Mr. Pirazzini introduced himself as:

    Good day, my name is Gianvico Pirazzini, I am an architect of Bologna, and I‚Äôve been part of eng. Rossi‚Äôs team for about 2 years. I was initially involved in the Ecat project to fix the domestic version. Subsequently, and later I‚Äôll explain why, I‚Äôve been working on the industrial version…

    The question/fun now is: When Mr Pirazzani is working for Rossi for two years already, why do they communicate via JONP like this: ?


    Gianvico Pirazzini architetto Bologna
    September 4th, 2012 at 12:28 PM

    Dr Rossi, is it true that to attend your conference of Zurich is necessary to pay a ticket of 300 Euro?

    Regards/Saluti
    Gianvico Pirazzini architetto Bologna IT

    Andrea Rossi
    September 4th, 2012 at 2:17 PM
    Dear Gianvico Pirazzini Architetto:
    I swear I am going to Zurich at my full expenses, to meet our Licensees and some public to give information. I will not get a single cent. I ignore how much costs to attend, honestly is not my business, probably there are hotel and restaurant expenses, I do not know. I told to my wife that there is people paying 300 Euro to listen to me: she said she would not listen to me even for free: “nemo propheta in patria sua est”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Another thing makes me wonder: Why wasn’t Domenico Fioravanti (aka “Cures”), the retired colonel, which did the 1MW “acceptance test”, present at anyone of the two presentations (Zurich, Pordenone).
    According to Rossi, he was helping him as a specialist for thermo-dynamic systems. I guess some people would have liked to talk to him.

    • RonB

      October 27, 2012 at 10:48 pm

      ” architect of Bologna” now that made me laugh!

      Seems like him might not be the only one.
      hahahahaha

  46. Quax

    October 27, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Greenwin wrote, in a comment that was remarkably snark free (sorry that popeye still took you to the cleaner for it):

    So, do you and your fellow skeps insist on decorum and “falling long” – or on walking the real walk? Going into the field willing to stumble upon unknown phenomenon that might very well make the world a better place? How about coming off the high horse of old “science” and allowing new ideas to procreate?

    If I actually had access to a lab I think it would be reasonable to look into the anomalous heat effects. First priority would be to take Dr. Shanahan’s criticism into account and to check if any significant effect remains.

    • RonB

      October 27, 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Quax,
      I think I’d go for detecting gamma rays. If you were to find them for sure wouldn’t you be home free? End of discussion?

      • Quax

        October 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm

        Gamma clearly above background or clear evidence of neutrons make a strong case. Especially if you had a set-up that allows you to trigger them in a controlled manner. Bonus points if you’re also able to show a distinct energy signature.

    • GreenWin

      October 28, 2012 at 7:29 am

      Quax, I couldn’t find Shanahan’s cover bio… Only his work as a programmer for Westinghouse Inc. at Savannah River since 1989… same year F&P announced.

      A little background on Kirk L. Shanahan: a software programmer for Westinghouse Savannah River Company since at least 1989. Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) is a consortium of four major companies: Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, Bechtel, and BNFL.

      Shanahan is heavily invested in DOE weapons programs at WSRC, and a big supporter of laser driven inertial confinement theory – like the NIF. The failure of inertial confinement and success of cold fusion experiments has unleashed a torrent of Josh Cude/yugo/popeye/shanahan diatribes.

      But Shanahan is something of a ghost as there is little or no background for him outside his employment by the Westinghouse nuclear management company. Papers he contributes to do not represent DOE or Savannah River Lab – only the opinion of the authors as employees of Westinghouse.

      What’s he a “doctor” of??

  47. RonB

    October 27, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    If this has been posted already, please forgive the repeat. I hadn’t seen it before.

    http://newelectrics.blogspot.com/2012/09/e-cat-to-publish-report-once.html

    Interesting tone and it’s not that old.

  48. spacegoat

    October 28, 2012 at 1:11 am

    A 100% faith thread below, courtesy of georgehants on ECW
    http://www.keshefoundation.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2884

    So blue prints for infinite energy have freely been delivered to the Italian Government.

    Close this site immediately, Rossi is redundant. 🙂

    • RonB

      October 28, 2012 at 1:27 am

      what’s it mean? What are they talking about spaceships?? Did I fall asleep for like 20 years or something…? Is it April already?
      Mamma Meeaaaa

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 28, 2012 at 5:04 am

      SG where are the blueprints are they available, I went to the site but a bunch of text, I want pictures.

    • Frank

      October 28, 2012 at 11:11 am

      … and Sterling Allen promotes them all:
      (“identifying and promoting the best clean energy technologies”)
      http://pesn.com/2012/09/21/9602183_Interviews_with_MT-Keshe_Konstantin-Myel_September_21_Lecture/

      For the Daniel alike: Watch their “impressive” office and their presentations on youtube. This guys can’t be all deluded or scammers, can they??? 😉

      I’m wondering how do all this “free energy” guys finance their venture (and their living). They look quite wealthy. Where does the money come from?
      This makes me think, why not join such a team. For a good salary I promise not to ask bothering questions how exactly a ‘free energy’ generator works, not look too much into the core and details, but proclaim how excited I am about the prospects of that invention.

      • spacegoat

        October 28, 2012 at 12:24 pm

        Frank
        The ideal situation would be free energy and free love. Do you have charisma and a low scam profile? Can you deal with multitudes of nubile free energy hippies? What AR is attracting in the dressing rooms of his gigs?

  49. dsm

    October 28, 2012 at 2:54 am

    It was just pointed out to me that eCat Australia has an intro video that states in unambiguous terms that the character portrayed in the cartoon like video, has an eCat powering his home and an eCat powering his factory.
    .
    The spoken words used convey a rather odd Australian accent, barely hear-able (like as if the speaker has serious nasal congestion vs most Aussies speaking with very mild nasal congestion (except for the women who can tend to speak with a high pitched nasal congestion)).
    .
    Anyway, the speaker ends with the words Tomorrow’s energy Today.
    .
    Seems to me this is a dose of false advertising. although elsewhere on the site it does state that the Home eCat will be available mid 2013. But DOES claim the 1 Mw units area available for shipment today.
    .
    Hmmmm
    .
    DSM
    PS Just look at all the countries eCat Australia claims to have licenses for or joint-ventures for. Anyone want to open a bokk as to who soon they actually sell a 1MW eCat in Australia.

    • dsm

      October 28, 2012 at 3:03 am

    • CuriousChris

      October 28, 2012 at 8:05 am

      I sent a message via their online form to ask if they have Australian certification for any of the devices.

      Being nuclear in nature they must have some form of approval. You can’t just install a reactor in your back yard. well you shouldn’t anyway. UL approval wouldn’t cut it, but would certainly help get a licence from the gov.

      I received no response.

      It is sounding more and more lie Roger Green is not just a gullible investor but is actually complicit in the fraud.

      • Alain

        October 28, 2012 at 10:11 am

        all is nuclear, including your finger.
        all is radioactive, including you wive.

        what is regulated depend on places, but one definition I’ve heard (in italy? in EU) of what need regulation:
        – produce radiation much above the background: not LENR
        – contain noticeable quantity of radioactive compound: not LENR
        – produce noticeable quantity of radioactive compound: not LENR
        – self sustained nuclear reaction : this is why rossi have to make the reactor subcritical.

        anyway I’m afraid the fearmonger will try to manipulate the fact to block LENr at home, and support incumbent monopoly and block immoral energy abundance. but that is another story…

  50. Dick Smith

    October 28, 2012 at 6:14 am

    Quick. We can all place a pre-order for a one KW unit now!
    That factory in Florida must be turning out thousands .
    It’s great that my fellow Aussies are involved in the fantastic future of this product and it’s just not Italy that will be benefitting financially.
    If I wasn’t such a born skeptic I could possibly be making a fortune like Roger!

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 28, 2012 at 11:14 am

      I am doing one better Dick Smith, I am making my own coffee pot, and when LENR works and we are able to get the materials for the fuel “then” I can just adapt it with a fuel.

      My coffee pot runs off of DC so when the tsunami hits in a few minutes I can still have coffee by hooking up the jumper cables to my tractor.