Re: [Vo]:a better incandescent light bulb

[Michael Foster]

 Here is yet another example of how broken science has become. The fundamental 
theoretical concept of this research has merit. The possibility of a practical 
manufacturing process is remote and the researchers know it.

It's an interesting little project to amuse the scientists and get (you guessed 
it) funding. If you read the article in
https://www.nature.com/nnano/articles
you will see all sorts of stylish scientific neologisms and buzz words dressing 
up the description of the research scattered about. You know, there are terms 
such as "photonic crystal" and "photonic filter" and lots of nano this and 
that. 

Nowhere did I see the words "hot mirror" or "dichroic filter". Don't you wanna 
know why. That's because these are words to describe things that have been 
around for a long time and they are exactly what is described in this research. 
If the scientists used these words, they would get no funding, and they sure as 
hell wouldn't be published in Nature.

Incidentally, when you look up the term "hot mirror", try to avoid looking at 
the pictures of those hot bikini clad babes looking at themselves in the mirror.


 On Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 03:42:33 PM GMT+1, H LV 
 wrote:  
 
 This story is five years old.Is anyone aware of further 
progress?https://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds

Harry  

Re: [Vo]:Physics Today does not allow references to peer-reviewed cold fusion literature

[Michael Foster]

 Jed, from my point of view, I needed a personal "trigger warning" before 
reading this. My head may explode. My contention that science is broken is yet 
reinforced by what you say here. The lack of applied science is really a 
symptom of the wholesale de-industrialization of the U.S. and other Western 
nations in favor of our "friend" across the Pacific. Banking and financial 
interests have brought this about.

Your heroic efforts in trying to keep cold fusion research alive by collecting 
the research papers in one accessible place seem to have come against a 
virtually insurmountable wall created by over-funded "scientists". These people 
have an objective other than the whole purpose of science which is the search 
for the truth of the physical world. Their only objective is funding. A 
disruptive new discovery that threatens their massively over-funded projects 
will be fought tooth and nail. ITER will never die if it's up to these folks. 
Break-even will always be just around the corner.


 On Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 06:56:19 PM GMT+1, Jed Rothwell 
 wrote:  
 
 Here is an article in Physics Today: "Q&A: Harry Collins on acquiring and 
using scientific knowledge."

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20210217a/full/

It says: "And to debunk cold fusion, it had to be agreed that [Stanley] Pons 
and [Martin] Fleischmann were not the right kind of scientists to be doing the 
work. In neither case was it enough, at the time, simply to say the results 
weren’t replicated, even though that is how we describe it in retrospect."
I posted the following response, which was removed.


Jed Rothwell  an hour agoRemoved
Collins said: " And to debunk cold fusion, it had to be agreed that [Stanley] 
Pons and [Martin] Fleischmann were not the right kind of scientists to be doing 
the work."

Pons and Fleischmann were not debunked. Their results were replicated in over 
180 major laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake, and BARC. These 
replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals by many 
distinguished scientists, such as the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy 
Commission. Many of the replications were at very high signal to noise ratios, 
for example, with excess heat ranging from 5 to 100 W, and tritium ranging from 
50 to 10E16 times background. Helium has been measured in many labs at the same 
ratio to the heat as D-D plasma fusion. A review of the subject is here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrob...

A collection of papers is here:

https://lenr-canr.org

Furthermore, Pons and Fleischmann were experts in electrochemistry and 
calorimetry, which are essential skills to reproduce cold fusion. Other experts 
confirmed other aspects of the results. The designer of the Los Alamos Tritium 
System Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Tests Reactor tritium detector 
confirmed the tritium, as did the experts at BARC and elsewhere. The helium was 
confirmed in the three top U.S. helium detection laboratories, in blind tests.
  

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Physics Today does not allow references to peer-reviewed cold fusion literature

[Jed Rothwell]

There is no getting through to people like the editors at Physics Today. I
expect that even if everyone here were to write to them, they would reject
every message.

They think of themselves as fair, objective and open minded. Perhaps they
are open minded about some subjects, but not cold fusion. I regard this
above all as a failure of imagination, described by Giorgio de Santillana
in the book "The Origins of Scientific Thought:"

The failure of imagination explains, among other things, why men became so
reactionary-minded, even when they thought they were entertaining the most
lofty and liberal ideals. Something like that was to occur again in the
American South. When Aristotle, the great master of ethics, said that
slavery is a fact of nature, and that we shall need slaves so long as the
shuttle will not run in the loom by itself, he had registered one of those
great mental blocks which foretell the end of a cycle. And this leads us to
what is obviously crucial, the lack of an applied science.

Pure science is always a hazardous and unfinished affair, stretching out
its structures in perilous balance over the unknown. It does not suit men’s
whims or comfort their fears. In order to be accepted by a tough-minded
society, it must produce unquestionable and stunning results, as happened
with Newton’s laws. Otherwise, it will be told to lay off and not disturb
people’s minds unnecessarily.

As Martin Fleischmann said: "People don't want progress; it makes them
uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't have it." "People" in
this case, include the editors at Physics Today, even though they
themselves would vociferously deny that.

[Vo]:Physics Today does not allow references to peer-reviewed cold fusion literature

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is an article in Physics Today: "Q&A: Harry Collins on acquiring and
using scientific knowledge."

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20210217a/full/

It says: "And to debunk cold fusion, it had to be agreed that [Stanley]
Pons and [Martin] Fleischmann were not the right kind of scientists to be
doing the work. In neither case was it enough, at the time, simply to say
the results weren’t replicated, even though that is how we describe it in
retrospect."

I posted the following response, which was removed.


Jed Rothwell   an hour ago

Removed

Collins said: " And to debunk cold fusion, it had to be agreed that
[Stanley] Pons and [Martin] Fleischmann were not the right kind of
scientists to be doing the work."

Pons and Fleischmann were not debunked. Their results were replicated in
over 180 major laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake, and BARC. These
replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals by many
distinguished scientists, such as the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy
Commission. Many of the replications were at very high signal to noise
ratios, for example, with excess heat ranging from 5 to 100 W, and tritium
ranging from 50 to 10E16 times background. Helium has been measured in many
labs at the same ratio to the heat as D-D plasma fusion. A review of the
subject is here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrob...


A collection of papers is here:

https://lenr-canr.org


Furthermore, Pons and Fleischmann were experts in electrochemistry and
calorimetry, which are essential skills to reproduce cold fusion. Other
experts confirmed other aspects of the results. The designer of the Los
Alamos Tritium System Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Tests Reactor
tritium detector confirmed the tritium, as did the experts at BARC and
elsewhere. The helium was confirmed in the three top U.S. helium detection
laboratories, in blind tests.

[Vo]:a better incandescent light bulb

[H LV]

This story is five years old.
Is anyone aware of further progress?
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds

Harry