Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
It's entropy, all curled up in those 7 extra dimensions of space. The radiation at its surface can make it very energetic, alphas and betas, the larger the particle the more energetic. Entropic flux creates gravity, electricity and magnetism. It flows and it orbits and 95% of the universe is comprised of it, at all energy levels of particles. Just my take on it. Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, December 31, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: “Obviously, if it is not a nuclear reaction (there are other possibilities besides fusion).” It could be accelerated alpha radiation from a partial lowering of the coulomb barrier. Alpha radiation is just doubly ionized helium. We can distinguish this helium production from fusion by that produced by alpha radiation if we also observe transmutation of a heavy element into a lighter one. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.com mgib**b...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. Close. It is the most widely-accepted interpretation of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as conjectures in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. The conjecture Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as PF's. So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the hodge-podge a theory in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to science taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for science and technology. Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate, effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a plasma, where the rate at which nuclei interact is known. The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the solid state) are enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed reasonable that fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium dissolved in palladium, by assuming that only two deuterium nuclei would iteract at a time. It's a 2-body problem, and the math is relatively simply. Generally speaking, making that approximation was thought to be adequate, and the approximation predicted that, even though the density and effective pressure of deuterium in palladium could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to a measureable level. That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. Their work was not energy research. They were not looking for an energy panacea, or free energy. They were doing basic scientific research, to test the assumptions being made about the application of quantum mechanics to condensed matter. They thought that what they would probably find was nothing. They were not naive, as the physicists often portrayed them. And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical explanation for it. And they were chemists, world-class. They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed that it was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of reasons, that's pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least usually. We don't know all the possibilities. Because they thought it was a bulk reaction, they expected to find helium in the bulk. It wasn't found. That's one of the experimental facts that deposited a layer of egg on their faces. Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place somehow. But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the enormous energies necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to catalze it cold -- and there is a known method of doing that -- for there to be enough of a reaction taking place to account for the heat that was being observed, the neutron radiation would have been deadly. But a little helium would be produced, and with it, a quite energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that. However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the ash. Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: This is a thoroughly embarrassing event in the history of science. It's a huge story, in fact. I've thought of asking Taubes to look at it again. I would not attempt to resuscitate Gary Taubes. He was a card carrying member of the original gang that sought to beat up Fleischmann and Pons and others -- his book makes it clear that he was on their cc lists and computer network exchanges, and he thanks many of them in the acknowledgments. I believe he said as late as 2009 something to the effect that suggested that his position hadn't changed. An interesting note about his book is how worked up he gets about Bockcris and Wolf the tritium. He himself seems to be aware of the implications of tritium, and he goes to pains to try to establish that either the tritium results are completely new science or they're due to (intentional) contamination. I believe he was trying to convince the world that there was clear fraud. I wonder whether this was triggered in part by Bockris's casual and consistent dismissal of the spiking hypothesis. I don't imagine that Taubes intended to do so, but to a reader twenty years later he ends up making Bockris look quite reasonable and likable. Hoffman suggests that measuring tritium is very problematic -- his transition into the discussion: If the problems of neutron artifacts seem somewhat dark, then the problem of tritium artifacts is the stygian blackness at the end of a very dark tunnel. He seems to be saying that, contrary to popular belief that tritium is very easy to measure, it is in fact very difficult to separate a tritium signal from artifact. This seems like a stretch. Perhaps I have read him incorrectly, here. Eric
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 01:16 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by PF. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. As Jed points out, the ERAB Panel was likely convened as a cold fusion killer. When Pons and Fleischmann announced, all hell broke loose. Huge sums were being invested, routinely, in hot fusion research (and buckets of cash are still being poured down that rathole). The administration wanted the issue resolved, and they wanted it resolved *fast*. So they formed the panel, and gave it an *impossible* task, to review the claims and judge them, before normal scientific process had a chance to catch up. Pons and Fleischmann had been working for five years in secrecy. And they still had a process that often failed to show anything. To come up with a judgment of the entire field within a short time was utterly impossible. The unknown reasons mentioned became known within a few years, the conditions associated with heat were *largely* identified, such that it can confidently be stated, now, exactly why the famous early replications failed. They were doomed to failure, and that was largely due to haste. The DoE had shifted discretionary funding into a crash confirmation program, not well-planned and inadequately executed. But if Jed is right and the purpose was to kill cold fusion, it worked quite well. They could say, We tried, but nobody could replicate it. In fact, before they finished their report, replications started to come in, but ... Jed is right, those were ignored. Miles had reported negative results at first, and they cited Miles. Then Miles started seeing positive results, and phoned the Panel. They did not return his phone call. This is all history, and there are a number of excellent books about it. Beaudette, Excess Heat, Why Cold Fusion Prevailed, is probably the best, but there is also Simon, Undead Science. Simon is a sociologist of science who studied the history of cold fusion. In fact, as of a few years ago, there were 153 reports of excess heat in these experiments, published in peer-reviewed journals. While in 1989-1990, negative reports outnumbered positive ones, the balance shifted, as I recall, positive reports -- as judged by the skeptical electrochemist, Dieter Britz, outnumbered negative ones. The extreme skeptical position disappeared from the journals sometime around the 2004 DoE report -- that almost tipped toward cold fusion. Storms' paper, Status of cold fusion (2010) (Naturwissenschaften) represents a milestone. NW is Springer-Verlag's flagship multidisciplinary journal. It's been publishing for about a century. Einstein was published in it. And the article wasn't titled Status of LENR. Storms came right out and called it Cold fusion. Because it's fusion, get over it Practical? That is *entirely* a different question. Maybe. Probably, even, but do not hold your breath.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. Close. It is the most widely-accepted interpretation of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as conjectures in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. The conjecture Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as PF's. So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the hodge-podge a theory in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to science taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for science and technology. Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate, effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a plasma, where the rate at which nuclei interact is known. The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the solid state) are enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed reasonable that fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium dissolved in palladium, by assuming that only two deuterium nuclei would iteract at a time. It's a 2-body problem, and the math is relatively simply. Generally speaking, making that approximation was thought to be adequate, and the approximation predicted that, even though the density and effective pressure of deuterium in palladium could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to a measureable level. That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. Their work was not energy research. They were not looking for an energy panacea, or free energy. They were doing basic scientific research, to test the assumptions being made about the application of quantum mechanics to condensed matter. They thought that what they would probably find was nothing. They were not naive, as the physicists often portrayed them. And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical explanation for it. And they were chemists, world-class. They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed that it was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of reasons, that's pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least usually. We don't know all the possibilities. Because they thought it was a bulk reaction, they expected to find helium in the bulk. It wasn't found. That's one of the experimental facts that deposited a layer of egg on their faces. Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place somehow. But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the enormous energies necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to catalze it cold -- and there is a known method of doing that -- for there to be enough of a reaction taking place to account for the heat that was being observed, the neutron radiation would have been deadly. But a little helium would be produced, and with it, a quite energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that. However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the ash. Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we had a confirmation of theory. Does that mean that Preparata's theory was true. Not necessarily! There is a whole lot more that would have to happen. Helium is, in fact, found, but only in two places; evolved in the gas, roughly half, and trapped in the lattice, near the surface. When the original testing had been done on Pons-Fleischmann cells, they had removed the outer layer of the cathodes, to eliminate absorbed helium from the air! In any case, there are plenty of confirmed theories of cold fusion. It's just that there is no *complete* theory. There are theories than can allow a researcher to be confident that in a series of cells, they will see some with excess heat. There is a very important theory, that the anomalous heat in an FPHE experiment is produced by the conversion of deuterium to helium, with no other major products. That theory, then, allows certain prodictions to be made. From the heat, one can predict how much helium
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
“Obviously, if it is not a nuclear reaction (there are other possibilities besides fusion).” It could be accelerated alpha radiation from a partial lowering of the coulomb barrier. Alpha radiation is just doubly ionized helium. We can distinguish this helium production from fusion by that produced by alpha radiation if we also observe transmutation of a heavy element into a lighter one. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.com mgib**b...@gibbs.com mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. Close. It is the most widely-accepted interpretation of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as conjectures in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. The conjecture Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as PF's. So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the hodge-podge a theory in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to science taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for science and technology. Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate, effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a plasma, where the rate at which nuclei interact is known. The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the solid state) are enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed reasonable that fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium dissolved in palladium, by assuming that only two deuterium nuclei would iteract at a time. It's a 2-body problem, and the math is relatively simply. Generally speaking, making that approximation was thought to be adequate, and the approximation predicted that, even though the density and effective pressure of deuterium in palladium could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to a measureable level. That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. Their work was not energy research. They were not looking for an energy panacea, or free energy. They were doing basic scientific research, to test the assumptions being made about the application of quantum mechanics to condensed matter. They thought that what they would probably find was nothing. They were not naive, as the physicists often portrayed them. And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical explanation for it. And they were chemists, world-class. They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed that it was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of reasons, that's pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least usually. We don't know all the possibilities. Because they thought it was a bulk reaction, they expected to find helium in the bulk. It wasn't found. That's one of the experimental facts that deposited a layer of egg on their faces. Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place somehow. But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the enormous energies necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to catalze it cold -- and there is a known method of doing that -- for there to be enough of a reaction taking place to account for the heat that was being observed, the neutron radiation would have been deadly. But a little helium would be produced, and with it, a quite energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that. However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the ash. Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we had a confirmation of theory. Does that mean that Preparata's theory was true. Not necessarily! There is a whole lot more that would have to happen. Helium is, in fact, found, but only in two places; evolved in the gas, roughly half, and trapped in the lattice, near the surface. When the original testing had been done on Pons-Fleischmann cells, they had removed the outer layer of the cathodes, to eliminate absorbed helium from the air! In
RE: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
From Mark, And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... I was joking. Of course it wasn't his fault ... this may not be the place for levity. Vortex-l often displays levity. Some enjoy it. Some don't, particularly those who may feel levity had been executed at their expense. ;-) However, it was not clear to me when you were joking and when you weren't. Which begs the question, when should one take what you write (or post) seriously and when shouldn't one? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. A demonstrably practical device, sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A demonstrable testable theory? Nope. I wrote a testable theory ... you even quoted me! My apologies. You most certainly did not use the word demonstrably with the phrase testable theory. From SVJ: Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don't know. Hopefully, we'll know the answer to that soon. You miss my point ... it was or not and. Either would be the answer to Peter's question. At least that what I was suggesting. I believe I did get your point. You said or. I even quoted you're or! However, I can see how one might interpret my comment as meaning both. It wasn't. The point I was trying to get across was that a testable theory is not likely to be anywhere near as much of a game changer as having a demonstrably practical device on hand. I give up. It seems you and Jed are committed to being right about the argument you want to have. I don't speak for Mr. Rothwell, and I know Mr. Rothwell certainly doesn't speak for me. We certainly aren't in collusion with each other. Quite frankly, you sound a tad harassed to me. in my opinion. Granted, my intentions were to deliberately put you on the spot. On that point I appear to have succeeded, however briefly it might have been. My final objective was to point out what I personally perceived to be certain level of emotionally charged defensiveness on your part. I also wanted to point out that IMHO, you might on occasion be putting the cart before the horse in regards to what is likely to be more of a game changer in the highly contentious LENR field. IMO, a demonstrably practical device is where the real jam lies. A testable theory often seems to come later. much later. PS: Writing does not come easy for me. As a recovering part-time dyslexic I occasionally make mistakes and misinterpretations - especially when I feel pressed for time. (And spell-check is a double-edged sword.) Par for the course. The LENR field needs good writers who can help point out to the general public what the real obstacles are and what needs to be done in order to overcome them. It remains my hope, as I'm sure it is to most on this list, that you will continue to do your best. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com I I can be critic on LENR community, like on mainstream science community, is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT Ditto and likewise. As Einstein wrote : Experimentum summus judex (Experiment is the supreme judge)
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Dear Mark, Testable is a polysemantic and somewhat ambiguous word- really testable means it can be used for scaling up the process. First class theory predicts and suggests Second class theory prohibits Third class theory explains. LENR needs a 1st class theory and this goes MUCH beyond and above telling how a smart hydrogen isotope goes through the dangerous Coulomb Barrier. Valuable LENR (LENR+) is an invention not a discovery and it will enter the list soon. Peter On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg] -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Cold fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and the Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist would say these are will-o-the-wisp findings. Everyone knows they are real, even though they are of no practical use. Nearly every breakthrough in the history of science and technology has gone through a long period of gestation as a useless laboratory curiosity. Sometimes this lasts for years, sometimes for decades. You see this in the history of steam engines, telegraphy, photography, electric motors, incandescent lighting, Diesel engines, aviation, rocketry, DNA, computers, the laser, and countless others. Oersted demonstrated the principle of induction and electromagnets in 1820. Electric telegraphs had to wait for Henry to improve the electromagnet. Edison made the first practical electric motors in 1880. It took biologists 50 years to figure out that the genome is in nucleic acid, and not protein. *Fifty years*! The Curies discovered radioactivity in 1898. The first practical use of this was in the atomic bomb in 1945, and the first commercial nuclear reactor was made in 1950. If people had ignored or dismissed these subjects because they were unfinished scientific research, we would still be living with 18th century technology. It is the height of arrogance, and *gross ignorance of history*, to dismiss a laboratory finding because it seems to have no immediate, short-term practical use. Frankly, it is incredible to me that a science journalist such as Gibbs does not realize this. Have you read *nothing* about history?!? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. I do not care how many scientists say they doubt these findings. I do not care whether these scientists are distinguished leaders such as Steven Chu. They may be objective scientists regarding their own areas of expertise, but if they reject the tritium findings or calorimetry, then with regard to this particular subject, they are flat-out ignorant, wrong, idiotic and as misguided as the worst faith-healing creationist nitwit in Georgia. People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*. The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by PF. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? That would depend on academic politics and funding. It is not a scientific question. If a reasonable level of funding had been made available in 1990 we would probably have cold fusion automobiles by now. To address the technical issues: let us compare cold fusion to plasma fusion. A tokamak reactor costs $1 billion to $15 billion. The longest, most powerful plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL was 10 MW lasting 0.6 s; 6 MJ. It took far more input energy to sustain the reaction than it produced. Cold fusion reactions have produced 150 MJ at 100 W or more, lasting up to 3 months. In some cases it takes not input energy to sustain the reaction. That is, by any measure, more practical than plasma fusion. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. Plasma fusion research has continued for 60 years. It costs more every month than the entire amount of money spent on cold fusion since 1989. So, cold fusion has made far more progress per dollar and per man-hour of work. And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... A scientific experiment cannot be evaluated by payoff but only by the s/n ratio and the knowledge it contributes to science as a whole. Science is not a practical or useful endeavor. It sometimes contributes practical results to daily life, but this is never assured, it is cannot be used as a metric to evaluate the results. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all time, such as Newton's, had no practical use for decades. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. The claims have been verified thousand of times in hundreds of major laboratories. 14,000 times, according to the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Normally, when a claim of this type is confirmed by Los Alamos and 3 or 4 other major labs, every scientist on earth accepts it. This one has been confirmed time after time, in experiments published in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. For a scientist not to believe it is lunacy. It is the betrayal of the scientific method, and the abandonment of all rational standards of belief. If you don't believe replicated experiments you have no basis to believe or reject anything in science. Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Theory has no bearing on the validity of a scientific claim. There was not theory for nuclear reactions in the sun before 1939, and no theory at all describing cellular reproduction (DNA) before 1952, but there was not a scientist on earth who denied that the sun shines and that cells reproduce. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You are asking for something that has never, in the history of science, been considered a valid criterion to reject an experimental claim. NEVER. You turn the scientific method upside-down. First we discover things by experiment. Then we explain them. Not being able to explain them is never a reason to reject experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*. The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by PF. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
I agree that it is not very good politic to convince. however it is clear and true. you should read the facts. i don't even understand how people can express so much doubt, when not simple usual denial. just read the data, and remind that consensus can be pathologic... history says so. the maximum that seems rational given the data (that I just survey in 1993 and in 2012) is not to be absolutely sure... I feel irrational to be rejecting LENR as a fact. for the rest it is well explained, and I'm always shocked that so many people ignore the history of science and engineering (engineers being the first to get into reality, because they get a practical advantage seeing the reality, unlike scientists who get a practical advantage following the consensus)... only recently, since the 50s with laser, GPS, were there no real invention obtained from flat theory... Theory was used only to improve existing engineering. even some example of theory driven invention like semiconductors were in fact driven by experiment , and delayed by denial... see the germanium junction ... Capacity of scientist to rewrite the history is so funny. all the bullshit about LENr being impossible according to QM, is simple stinky busllshit for any engineer in semiconductors, in superconductors... that scientist, especially physicist might have said that LENR was impossible in room temp lattice should be taken as a proof of incompetence... I don't know is some physicist said that LENr was breaking thermodynamic laws, hope no, but is yes they should be fired instantly... because any one with a science bachelor know that nuclear reaction don't break TD laws. Even is LENR is finally disproved (which should call for a new physics, alien intervention, international conspiracy) all that have been said and done, like Nature report 42 rejection, should be studied as a pathologic event. This why i'm so supportive of Roland Benabou Groupthink and collective denial theories ( http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf)... because instead of psychiatry, it uses an interpretation as semi-rational psychology. if not, we will have to call psychiatry. just try to find an interpretation of ENEA paper about crystallography impact on LENR effect. add McKubre isothermal calorimetry, nasaothers gas permeation experiments, tritium findings, ENEA report 42... and try to find a coherent explanation for all as artifacts, correlated to cristallography, he4... of course you can invoke fraud, but for know the fraud and conspiracy is clearly proved at MIT, Nature Science... Occam razor give a clear scenario: LENr is real, complex, and since few months usable... otherwise we should invoke some much more irrational explanations... to find many proof of current pathology, try that forum http://www.lenr-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?29-Scientific-community there are pile of stoky evidence... and for the rest, look at other business and scientific data. many data come from jed, which explain why he is so confident. he just know the data. Me I just got them in 93, and updated in 2012... 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. Cold fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and the Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist would say these are will-o-the-wisp findings. Everyone knows they are real, even though they are of no practical use. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... (snip, snip, snip) It is the height of arrogance, and *gross ignorance of history*, to dismiss a laboratory finding because it seems to have no immediate, short-term practical use. Frankly, it is incredible to me that a science journalist such as Gibbs does not realize this. Have you read *nothing*about history?!? Gibbs? Are you replying to me or simply grandstanding to the list? I think your passion for cold fusion is getting in the way here. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. That is not a theory. It is an assertion. nuclear reaction cannot occur. It is based on various theories, but that statement by itself does not constitute a theory. An assertion can be proved or disproved by a single experiment. It can be voted up or down, as it were. A theory is usually too multifaceted for that. For example, cold fusion does not prove that plasma fusion theory is wrong; it only proves that the theory does not apply to a lattice. That assertion was proved wrong when cold fusion experiments produced tritium and heat beyond the limits of chemistry. As Abd emphasizes, later on it was shown that cold fusion produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does, which proves it is fusion. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. There is no theory, but there is a clearly stated set of claims which were confirmed. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation. However, the phenomena were obtained in only about half the cells. From the conditions of loading, initiation time, and current density on the successful observations of excess heat, it is understood why the phenomena are so difficult to attain. There are no statements relating to theory here, except conventional chemical theory which shows that a chemical reaction occurs with electron bonds and is limited to ~4 eV per atom. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
I I can be critic on LENR community, like on mainstream science community, is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT you learn that when you are a kid interested in science... Me too I want to be abrasive because it seems that most science community is incompetent... or simply badly educated. the worst is that being intelligent and competent they can be toxic. what I have seen in science around LENR is LAZY people... some reject facts because they don't find a theory to explain them. some invent an ad-hoc theory that have no real foundation, because they don't find a theory... the fact is that today we need more experimental results, and more physicists who dare to work on LENR, to make a better theory... today QM is so badly mastered that QM is not incompatible with LENR... we don't know and we should accept it... and it have NO RELATION with usability, and hope to make it working... just need engineers... we have it, and it will take 5 years to be put on the market at usual speed... still 3 years to go. hope less. 2012/12/29 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as *conjectures* in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. The conjecture Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as PF's. So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the hodge-podge a theory in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to science taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for science and technology.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. (I was going to continue using one but that sounds stuffy ... in the following you should be read as people generally and not as you, Jed Rothwell) You choose to resort to incivility in an attempt to add emotional force to your arguments or because you are so attached to your viewpoint and so enraged by the unwillingness of others to agree with you that you attempt to bully them into agreeing or leaving the argument. What the Japanese do is neither here nor there and doesn't justify incivility. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? That would depend on academic politics and funding. It is not a scientific question. If a reasonable level of funding had been made available in 1990 we would probably have cold fusion automobiles by now. Far closer was you assertion, not mine. So, your assertion really is it could be closer. To address the technical issues: let us compare cold fusion to plasma fusion. A tokamak reactor costs $1 billion to $15 billion. The longest, most powerful plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL was 10 MW lasting 0.6 s; 6 MJ. It took far more input energy to sustain the reaction than it produced. Cold fusion reactions have produced 150 MJ at 100 W or more, lasting up to 3 months. In some cases it takes not input energy to sustain the reaction. That is, by any measure, more practical than plasma fusion. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. But we don't have that so we don't have prototypes. Plasma fusion research has continued for 60 years. It costs more every month than the entire amount of money spent on cold fusion since 1989. So, cold fusion has made far more progress per dollar and per man-hour of work. OK, but where's the beef? And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... A scientific experiment cannot be evaluated by payoff but only by the s/n ratio and the knowledge it contributes to science as a whole. Science is not a practical or useful endeavor. It sometimes contributes practical results to daily life, but this is never assured, it is cannot be used as a metric to evaluate the results. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all time, such as Newton's, had no practical use for decades. But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, you're in it for the payoff. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. (snip, snip, snip) Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Theory has no bearing on the validity of a scientific claim. There was not theory for nuclear reactions in the sun before 1939, and no theory at all describing cellular reproduction (DNA) before 1952, but there was not a scientist on earth who denied that the sun shines and that cells reproduce. In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are believed to be the result of a novel physical process. No one has been able to explain what causes the phenomena and no one has been able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You are asking for something that has never, in the history of science, been considered a valid criterion to reject an experimental claim. NEVER. You turn the scientific method upside-down. First we discover things by experiment. Then we explain them. Not being able to explain them is never a reason to reject experiments. What did Peter originally ask? when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [m]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as *conjectures* in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. Correct. Although I think everyone agrees that conjecture was solidly based. Even FP themselves were astounded at the results. In a sense, cold fusion disproves this conjecture, or this instance of it. But most theoreticians I know prefer to say it shows the limitations of present theory. It shows that the theory does not extend from plasma to the solid state lattice. That does not mean the whole theory goes down the tubes. It means the theory applies to a special case, rather than begin universal. Along the same lines, special relativity did not disprove Newtonian physics; it showed that at a significant fraction of the speed of light you have to modify Newtonian physics. The difference is not observable at ordinary speeds, and you cannot discover it until you know that the speed of light is invariant. So it makes no sense to say that Newton was wrong. You can't be wrong about an observation no one has made yet! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as *conjectures* in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. Correct. Although I think everyone agrees that conjecture was solidly based. Even FP themselves were astounded at the results. In a sense, cold fusion disproves this conjecture, or this instance of it. But most theoreticians I know prefer to say it shows the limitations of present theory. It shows that the theory does not extend from plasma to the solid state lattice. That does not mean the whole theory goes down the tubes. It means the theory applies to a special case, rather than begin universal. Along the same lines, special relativity did not disprove Newtonian physics; it showed that at a significant fraction of the speed of light you have to modify Newtonian physics. The difference is not observable at ordinary speeds, and you cannot discover it until you know that the speed of light is invariant. So it makes no sense to say that Newton was wrong. You can't be wrong about an observation no one has made yet! Not to be pedantic but I think that one could reasonably state that pre-Maxwell Newtonian physics could reasonably be treated as an axiomatic system that had theorems -- not conjectures -- about conditions at relativistic velocities that were subsequently falsified by experiment. I think this is where the difference between a conjecture and an hypothesis comes into play. Conjectures are about the outcomes of formal proofs. Hypotheses are about the outcomes of experimental conditions. Hypotheses may be based on theorems or conjectures.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your assertions are ignorant nonsense. Your statements violate the principles of science described in junior high school introductory textbooks, such as the primacy of experiments over theory, and the fact that we do not need a theory to be sure that a phenomenon is real. You are not the only one who makes these mistakes. Huizenga's statements are wrong on so many levels, and they are so ignorant, they are appalling. The main conclusion in his book is breathtaking. See: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html Far closer was you assertion, not mine. So, your assertion really is it could be closer. I meant far closer than plasma fusion or clean coal. The remaining technical problems in cold fusion could be fixed if we had the funding spent on these fields in one week. That is not a sure thing. There can never be a sure thing in research. But most researchers expect that is the case, and so do I, and the researchers I know a lot about this, so our guess is better than yours. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. The answer depends on politics. I cannot predict if, or when, sufficient money will be made available for this research. Cold fusion may never be funded, in which case it will never come to fruition. I can describe the technical problems and the likely solutions to them. I can make a reasonable guess about scientific or engineering issues. But no one can say when people will come to their senses and stop denying experimentally proven facts. That should have happened in 1990. Who can say how much longer it will take?!? Human irrationality is not predictable. Look at the history of wars, or the decades of opposition to other scientific breakthroughs such as Helicobacter pylori. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. But we don't have that so we don't have prototypes. Ah but there are many promising experiments that may well give us control. The problem seems solvable. Unfortunately, there is no funding to do these experiments. But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, you're in it for the payoff. No, I have not argued that. I have said that if it is funded, and if we are fortunate enough to have a breakthrough, THEN it will be world-changing. I have shown that it has already achieved sufficiently high temperatures and power density for practical applications. Funding is necessary but not sufficient. Funding along cannot guarantee success. Cancer research has been funded lavishly for decades, but unfortunately, public health epidemiology shows that there has been no measurable decrease in mortality rates from cancer. The diagnosis is made sooner, but the prognosis has not improved, and longevity has not increased. (Farley and Cohen) In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are believed to be the result of a novel physical process. Not believed, *proved* beyond any doubt. Proved with as much certainty as anything in science can be proved. The tritium and heat prove it. No chemical process can generate tritium. No one has been able to explain what causes the phenomena . . . You do not need to explain something to prove that it exists. Please try to understand that! and no one has been able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is. Because there is no funding. We have often made technology work without a theory. What did Peter originally ask? when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. You are wrong. Countless important inventions could not be explained by theory at first. Examples include radioactivity in 1898, airplanes in 1908, and HTSC today. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your assertions are ignorant nonsense. So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? If you want to promote understanding of LENR and be respected as a proponent you need to stop being emotional and ritualistically antagonistic. If someone insults your mother, sure, feel free to lash out if you must but no matter how much you feel people are ignorant, uninformed, or, for that matter, disagree with you about the existence or reality of LENR, that's hardly an excuse to be unpleasant. Moreover, aggression and incivility won't get LENR funded any quicker ... it will simply turn off those people who don't believe in LENR from engaging with you. I'm sure you'll reply with but I've had it with fill in insult like you who don't get it!! I'm sure you have but let's say that you are completely right about LENR. Will being uncivil get you anywhere faster? Is it a mature way to get what you want? If you haven't got the stamina for the long game better it's usually better not to play. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, but your statements violate the scientific method at an elementary level. I cannot think of a way to say that politely. When I say elementary I mean it literally: elementary school and junior-high introductory textbooks all say: * Science is based on experiments. When replicated experiments conflict with theory, theory must be revised. * Most phenomena are first discovered by experiment and confirmed, and only later explained by theory. * It is NEVER necessary to explain something by theory before you accept that it is real. Experiments prove it is real. Theory explains it. Those are two different things. This is *absolutely fundamental* to the scientific method. If we reject a finding because we have no theory, or ignore it, or refuse to fund it, scientific progress will come to halt. You have failed to grasp this! Again and again, you have ignored these fundamentals. You need to stop, read what the people at EPRI wrote, and think carefully. Pay close attention to this! EPRI said *nothing* about theory. Fleischmann, Pons and the others said nothing about theory. This is not about theory. Theory does not enter into this discussion. This is experimental science, not theory-based science. (There are theory-based sciences, but this is not one of them.) You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. When penicillin and other antibiotics were discovered, no one had any idea how they worked. If we had followed your standard for cold fusion, we would not have funded, developed, or used them until 30 years later when biologists finally explained them. We would not have developed the airplane until the mid-1920s when the first comprehensive theories explained wing lift. The Wrights used pragmatic engineering models based on instrument reading from their wind tunnel. They made no effort to develop a physics theory, although they were first-rate physicists. They were engineers, not fluid-dynamics physicists. You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? FIRST we do the research. THEN if we are skillful and lucky we will have the technology. Research is expensive. You have to have dozens of complicated machines, as you see in the photos here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187 You want to know how much research costs? Take the best estimate, multiply by 3, multiply again by 6, and add in a fudge factor of 80%. You want to know how long it will take? Longer. Just . . . longer. How hard it is? Much harder than anything that most people do their whole lives. It is like taking final exams in college level chemistry *every single day*. It is a miracle that any scientist succeeds at this game. Do scientists make mistakes? Yeah. As Stan Pons says, if we are half right we are doing great. They have made good progress despite the difficulties. Give them the tools and the money and they will probably succeed. If you want to promote understanding of LENR and be respected as a proponent you need to stop being emotional and ritualistically antagonistic. If you want to be taken seriously you will try to understand the roles of theory and observation, and the fact that an observation can be proved without a theory. You need to read what the experts at EPRI wrote, and you need to understand what they meant. Stop demanding a theory. Stop re-inventing the rules of the scientific method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to vortex, so this is my way of communicating. Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My question is, so what? So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. What do you propose do do about this? Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? Not my job. As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable predictions. What more do you want? I'd love to see those tests made. Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to encourage such tests? Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Regards, Mark. On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. You have failed to grasp this! Again and again, you have ignored these fundamentals. You need to stop, read what the people at EPRI wrote, and think carefully. Pay close attention to this! EPRI said *nothing* about theory. Fleischmann, Pons and the others said nothing about theory. This is not about theory. Theory does not enter into this discussion. This is experimental science, not theory-based science. (There are theory-based sciences, but this is not one of them.) Ye gods, man. Calm down. Nobody is going to die over this ... well, maybe you from a heart attack if you insist on being so wound up You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. (snip, snip, snip) You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It's not hard to grasp and it's not what I wrote in response to Peter. (snip, snip, snip Let me state, once again, my understanding: 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been turned into a useful technology. What's wrong about any of that? And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
The comparison to penicillin is instructive. Like most discoveries, this was developed and used extensively long before anyone understood how it worked in theory. Long before they could have understood it. Penicillin was developed in the 1940s, in a crash project to treat WWII casualties. Doctors soon confirmed that it worked by the simplest, most irrefutable method: they administered it to thousands of sick and wounded patients, and the patients recovered almost immediately, even in hopeless cases when they would have died without the drug. One or two recoveries might have been a coincidence. Ten or twenty, maybe. But not thousands. No sane doctor or scientist would have questioned the efficacy of penicillin after 1945, even though there was not theory to explain it until the 1960s. In exactly the same way, when Storms, Bockris and later Will working independently all detected high levels of tritium in cold fusion experiments, they knew at once that it is a nuclear effect. They proved there is a nuclear effect at room temperature in a hydride. They did not need a theory to prove that, and all the theory in the world cannot unprove it. It does not matter how many physicists refuse to believe it. Facts are facts, tritium is tritium, and it can only be produced by a nuclear reaction, by definition. Yes, it is possible for tritium to be contamination. It might be an instrument error, or some other radioactive element. As I said, it is possible that 5 or 10 patients might recover by coincidence after being given penicillin. You can only be absolutely sure the effect is real when you repeat it several times, and when experts rule out other causes. That is what happened with penicillin, and in 1989 with cold fusion. Storms et al. methodically ruled out things like external contamination. Storms showed that such contamination would have to be present at such high levels, the laboratory would be dangerous and the alarms would go off, forcing a permanent evaluation. The experiment was repeated dozens of times, later hundreds of times, with a high rate of success. Fritz Will et al. eventually saw tritium at 50 times background. They did hundreds of blank tests. The wrote: the probability that the tritium in the latter was due to random spot contamination is computed as 1 in 2,380. Eventually, the people at BARC, Amoco and over 100 other labs confirmed tritium production. The reactor safety group at the BARC power reactor confirmed this. As they said, if we did not know how to measure tritium, we would be dead. When the evidence piles up this high; when HUNDREDS of researchers confirm something in thousands of tests, and when they detect radioactive materials at levels that would be dangerous or deadly if the material was contamination coming from outside the cell, then you must put aside all doubts, and accept that the result is real. Any other evaluation is not just unscientific. Frankly, it would be lunacy. We know that tritium is the product of a nuclear reaction. Therefore we know that a nuclear reaction takes place in a cold fusion cell. There can be no doubt about it. The fact that we cannot explain this by theory has no bearing on the question. It does not reduce our confidence in the results. Rejecting this finding because there is no theory to explain it would be like withholding millions of doses of penicillin from the wounded soldiers on WWII battlefields because no one understood how penicillin worked. Because there was no theory. That would be criminal. It would be insanity. If the soldiers or civilians in 1945 learned that some doctor had made that decision, withheld the drug and cost the lives of 100,000 or more soldiers, they would be outraged. That doctor and everyone else involved would be tried for treason, and shot. Frankly, in my opinion, cold fusion is as important as penicillin. I am pretty sure that the decades-long delays caused by academic politics have cost far more than 100,000 lives. If people knew this, they would be outraged, justifiably so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
That's not correct. There is a theory that considers cold fusion as a variation of conventional hot fusion. This is Takahashi's TSC theory. TSC is a tetrahedron of hydrogens bound by coherent electrons, which also happen to be in a tetrahedral form, overlapping the protons. As you know, 2 tetrahedrons are shaped into an octahedron. Although this is a rare instance, it makes the hydrogena collapse all the way into atomic size. The electrons absorb the huge potential energies from the protons, so there is no emission of energy up to that point. There are several things that can happen after the collapse, but what happens in general is that in usual hot fusion you have the entrance of 2 particles, always, in TSC you everything is synchronized to 3 or more bodies to react. So, with several bodies, the energy levels of the system is extremely divided until it emitted in bundles of XUV to low energy xrays. That is, around 0.5KeV to 10KeV. This energy is extremely well absorbed by all kinds of matter, in fact, it is of the best absorbed wave bands and even something as thin as 1 micrometer or a few micrometers of air can absorb killowatts without any trace of the original radiation. This is why studies of the Solar Corona are mostly done in balloons or space given that they also happen to shine in this wavelength and any thin atmosphere may absorb all of the original photons. 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. [mg] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ye gods, man. Calm down. I am calm. If you think I am exited you are projecting. This cognitive dissonance on your side. I am calm because I have been writing this sort of thing for decades; I can do it in my sleep. Also because I used to teach. I am quite used to dealing with students who do not do their homework. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. Yes, but you answered it incorrectly. You failed to note that many important discoveries were acknowledged before anyone could explain them, such as airplanes and penicillin. Let me state, once again, my understanding: Below you have completely revised and restated your remarks. This is nothing like what you asserted before. 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. Right. 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. No theory is generally accepted. 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by conventional physics. That remains to be seen. Many experts such as Hagelstein say it can be explained by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. Correct. Although considerable progress has been made in control. 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been turned into a useful technology. There are not many claims of useful technology. No one has claimed this except perhaps Rossi. No researcher has said the phenomena have been turned into useful technology, or can be at this stage. They, and I, say that it has achieved most of the performance levels necessary for a practical device, such as temperature, power density, stability, longevity and a good input to output ratio. I also say it is far more practical than a Tokamak or clean coal -- a statement you have repeatedly ignored or misunderstood. On one hand we have a $100,000 experiment that produces 100 W of steady heat for 3 months. That was done a dozen times at Toyota. On the other hand we have $1 billion reactor that produced 10 MW for less than a second while it self-destructed. Which sounds more practical to you? Do you really have difficulty judging which is closer to becoming a useful source of energy? What's wrong about any of that? Nothing, but that is not at all what you claimed previously. Let's review a few of your statements: So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times at high s/n ratios in hundreds of major laboratories, and described in peer-reviewed journals. To call this a will-o-the-wisp phenomenon is a grotesque distortion of the facts. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. The claims have been verified as well as any experimental claim can be. The s/n ratio is high. There are no overdue promises. No one has promised anything. We have only pointed out what the data proves: that with control this could become a practical source of energy. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You have no reason to ask for a theory. No theory is needed at this stage to confirm the results. Theory is irrelevant. You and others have been demanding a theory and using the lack of theory as a reason to belittle, ignore, or disbelieve the results. That violates the scientific method. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. Will-o-the-wisp implies unconvincing. The theory is missing but not necessary. Tritium and other evidence tells us what is going on perfectly well without a theory. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. . . . Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? This is experimental science. It consists of observations. Theories come later. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. This is a political question. Practical applications can only come after the academic politics are overcome and funding is made available. I cannot predict when that might happen. Can you? You probably know more about about politics than I do, so you can answer this question better than I can. Theory is not relevant to practical applications. You can heat your house, fly an airplane or use penicillin even when you have no theory of combustion, fluid dynamics, or antibiotics. And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. And, as I said, this answer is wrong. You have not studied history. The airplane, the computer and many other devices were celebrated long before they
RE: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
From Mark Gibbs Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. Rothwell is what Rothwell does. I would suggest you get over it, particularly since who now seems to be showing just a pinch of emotionally charged defensiveness on their sleeve? ... And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. A demonstrably practical device, sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A demonstrable testable theory? Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don't know. Hopefully, we'll know the answer to that soon. Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. Can you at least understand, or at least appreciate why individuals, like Mr. Rothwell, occasionally get impatient with writers who seem oblivious to the fact that they propose we need to put the cart before the horse (meaning a testable theory) as a way to prove the existence of a controversial phenomenon, like LENR? There appears to be plenty of historical examples we can point to that proves such an assertion is false. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So what?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Rossi is the only one I can think of. I suggest you ignore him. He has not published any scientific data. The only way you can confirm his claims is to talk to people who tested his device independently when he wasn't there. (He was on another continent.) Unfortunately they do not wish to go public. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. Not many people. One person: Rossi. Plus Defkalion, I guess. As I said, there is plenty of evidence but Rossi and his supporters wish to keep it secret, for reasons I find perverse. They are not the first inventors to do this. Edison and many others played this game, for similar reasons. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. Many people contend this. You can confirm their assertions by looking carefully at the scientific evidence. McKubre's data proves it. It is about a zillion times more convincing than anything Rossi every published! Okay, it is not dramatic. It is only a few watts at best. But drama and scale play no role in science. The s/n ratio is fabulous and no skeptic has ever found a fault in it, or ever will. The Curies detected only microwatts of heat from radium, but they proved radioactivity is real. Their results prove it no less than the first nuclear bomb did in 1945. People are more likely to be convinced by the bomb because it is big and impressive. That is understandable to it is not a scientific outlook. Assuming Rossi's 16 kW is real, that does prove cold fusion is close to commercialization. Much closer than McKubre's data indicates. However, if you are looking for proof that the phenomenon is real, look at McKubre, or at Fritz Will's tritium data. Do not confuse real with close to commercialization. Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something . . . Read the literature to do determine this. You will never discover this by reading Rossi's blog! . . . and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. That is unanswerable. You would have to read Rossi's mind. I can't even read his English. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. No he isn't. He is nothing like any other researcher. He is sui generis, and not an example of anything. The closest person in history to him is Edison. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. True! But this is not a problem with the CF/LENR world. No one else in this business resembles Rossi. No one else confuses the picture or promises jam tomorrow. Look at the Italians or Pam Boss. Much as I love them, those people are NOT flamboyant. You are looking at Rossi, ignoring everyone else, and claiming that he sets the standard and he is the only one who counts. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. Okay, so do your homework. Read the literature. Talk to Rob Duncan. Stop fretting about Rossi. Ignore the flamboyant nonsense and look at the science. Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... It would help if you would stop publishing mistakes and unscientific assertions. Also if you would look at the science and ignore Rossi and his nonsense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Mark Gibbs And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... I was joking. Of course it wasn't his fault ... this may not be the place for levity. When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. ** A demonstrably practical device, sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A demonstrable testable theory? Nope. I wrote a testable theory ... you even quoted me! Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don’t know. Hopefully, we’ll know the answer to that soon. You miss my point ... it was or not and. Either would be the answer to Peter's question. At least that what I was suggesting. I give up. It seems you and Jed are committed to being right about the argument you want to have. [m]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
I am of the opinion that Anderson localization is among the many Quantum mechanical mechanisms that are central to and underlie the some lines of LENR technology. These lines involve hairy nickel nano-particles and cracks in metal lattices to be more specific. American physicist Philip W. Anderson won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1977, for his research into the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems, which led to the introduction of greatly advanced electronic switching and memory devices for computers. In 1958 he explored the phenomenon of electron localization, or Anderson localization, wherein beyond a critical amount of impurity scattering the diffusive motion of an electron halts. In 1959 he published a theory explaining superexchange, an interaction between the electrons of two molecular entities mediated by one or more molecules or ions. In 1961 he developed what is now called the Anderson model, to explain the behavior of heavy fermion systems. It is interesting to note that Anderson localization is at the forefront of experimental solid state and condensed matter Physics. After more than 60 years since its conception and after three decades after its recognition by the Nobel committee as a major field of physics has this quantum mechanical principle begin its demonstration in experimentation. In support of Jed’s point, some fields of knowledge advance at a very slow pace, especially as related to quantum mechanics, but this lack of speed should not discourage the recognition of their importance to scientific advance. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 29, 2012, at 16:42, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I was joking. Of course it wasn't his fault ... this may not be the place for levity. Levity is difficult to pick up on during a fine-grained discussion of details, unfortunately. About the sensationalizers and entrepreneurs who make claims, beyond Rossi and Defkalion there is Brillouin, and further afield, there are Lattice Energy, the Rohner brothers and Nanospire. We have a lot of fun analyzing their claims in great detail here. But one should resist putting them all in the LENR basket. Some make claims that what they're doing is LENR, some claim specifically that what they're doing is *not* LENR, some probably don't know much if anything about LENR. To further add to the confusion that exists in the wild and wooly world of free energy, some ambitious individuals have taken it upon themselves to make a distinction between LENR and cold fusion, and to discount the latter. All of this is a recipe for boundless and eternal confusion unless one carefully picks a reference point and proceeds from there. A respected researcher such as Ed Storms or Michael McKubre is a good place to start with regard to demarcating LENR, specifically. It is this smaller set of claims that Jed and Ed Storms are discussing. The subject matter of this list ranges much further than that and gets into claims that are delightfully ludicrous and even possibly fraudulent. Eric
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 05:07 PM 12/29/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. Mark, Jed is Jed. When I first became aware that LENR was a live field, in early 2009, I had correspondence with Jed and Steve Krivit, mostly abou the blacklistings of their web sites on Wikpedia. It became clear immediately that Jed is very firm in his opinions and very blunt. He has, shall we say, redeeming qualities. He is *usually*, on fact, right. He is also heavily involved with Japanese culture, and does a lot of translation from the Japanese. He *was* trying to be polite, without surrendering his point. I.e., he is also an American. If you want to participate here as an ordinary list member, that's fine. But you are also a journalist, and for a journalist to get involved in personal debates, when planning to report on the topic, is unprofessional. That, in fact, is what Steve Krivit did, and, as a result, many -- and possibly most -- of the scientists in the field don't trust him and won't talk to him. What Jed is telling you is partly fact, and partly informed opinion. If you want to be objective, you will need to sort thorugh it. Jed knows a great deal about this field. Ed Storms, who has commented here today, is probably the world's foremost expert on cold fusion. I suggest consulting them, actively. Both of them are opinionated, but both are very communicative, they are resources. They won't lie to you. You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. Yes, you did. What you wrote was not wrong, but it pushes certain buttons. I'm setting all that interchange aside, and responding to the original issues raised by your comments. First of all, there is a confirmed theory of cold fusion. It's not complete. The *mechanism* is missing. Given how much effort has already been put into coming up with a mechanism and then attempting to test it, with little success, I don't expect any theory of mechanism to be widely accepted soon. This is an enormously difficult theoretical question. There are tools to use, the tools of quantum field theory, but the problem is that the environment is extremely complex and applying the tools of quantum field theory in complex environments takes mathematics that we don't have. The prior *expectation* that fusion would not occur in the condensed matter environment was based on approximating the problem as a two-body problem. It was thought that would be sufficient, but Pons and Fleischmann decided to test it. They were *not* seeking a solution to the energy problem. They were doing basic scientific research. They *expected* some deviation from the calculations based in the assumption, but also that they would not be able to measure it. When their experiment rather dramatically melted down, they then worked for another five years in secrecy, and were forced to announce prematurely, by University legal. By that time they knew that they were seeing nuclear-level heat. They had scaled *down* for obvious safety reasons, and that is still advisable for most cold fusion work. Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect devices, using palladium deuteride, electrochemically loaded, are famously unreliable, and that cuts both ways. Something shold be made crystal clear. There is no longer any real scientific controversy over the reality of the effect. Jed will point to tons of experiments that showed excess heat, but that's not what sealed it scientifically. What all those experiments -- there are 153 reports confirming the heat effect in peer-reviewed literature -- did was to show that *something* highly anomalous was occurring. There were lots of reasons to doubt that it was nuclear in nature. However, by 1993, Miles had done the necessary work to determine the correlation between excess heat and helium. That work has been confirmed with increasing accuracy. Helium is a nuclear ash. Yes, you could say it might be leakage, except that idea does not match the actual experimental results and leakage would occur whether there was heat or not, *and these experiments look for helium in FP experiments whether there is heat or not. The non-heat cells become controls. And when there is no heat, there is no anomalous helium. And, further, as accuracy improved, the ratio got closer to the figure for deuterium fusion to
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 04:14 PM 12/29/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, but your statements violate the scientific method at an elementary level. Jed, Mark is not a scientist and does not pretend to be one. His statements are not statements of science. I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Don't say it at all, then. Didn't you get that in kindergarten? Mark is not a troll. He's a reporter or writer who seems to be developing an actual interest in the field. Look, you have been studying cold fusion for, I think, more than twenty years. You are one of the most widely-read people connected with a field. You are not a scientist, i.e., not formally, but you are correct about the scientific method. But there is no right to demand that *anyone* follow the scientific method. Mark was just making a statement about what would lead cold fusion to be recognized as a great invention, and he was half-right. That is, it will take practical application. Theory is irrelevant to this. And Mark is not likely to grasp in a few months or even a few years what you know from twenty. [...] You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Jed, he wrote that you were getting overheated. You may think that you are calm, but you are on a rant, and it's not about Mark. It's about years of the insanity that you have confronted. Mark made no demand. He's correct, he simply answered a question, and the only thing wrong with his answer is that he thinks a testable theory is needed. There is a testable -- and widely tested -- theory, that deuterium is being converted to helium, generating 23.8 MeV/He-4. And that has not turned cold fusion or LENR into the Greatest Invention of the Year. Only practical application would do that! (And theories are not inventions and theories don't win the Invention Awards.) FIRST we do the research. THEN if we are skillful and lucky we will have the technology. Research is expensive. You have to have dozens of complicated machines, as you see in the photos here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187 Yes. True. And what Mark says is still true, as to practical application. He was simply incorrect about testable theory. That won't have any effect. Perhaps he meant theory of mechanism, but we have such theories. They don't -- and won't -- make the difference. You want to know how much research costs? Take the best estimate, multiply by 3, multiply again by 6, and add in a fudge factor of 80%. You want to know how long it will take? Longer. Just . . . longer. How hard it is? Much harder than anything that most people do their whole lives. It is like taking final exams in college level chemistry every single day. It is a miracle that any scientist succeeds at this game. Do scientists make mistakes? Yeah. As Stan Pons says, if we are half right we are doing great. They have made good progress despite the difficulties. Give them the tools and the money and they will probably succeed. That's true. Now, Mark, as a writer, might possibly have some influence on this, at some point. Obviously, he felt insulted. Is that what you want? (To be sure, you did somewhat apologize, but it was what we call a weak apology, i.e. something like, I'm sorry if this is impolite, but you really are an ignorant moron. Sorry, just a fact. Very weak apology. Instead, Jed, I suggest you find what you can agree with, with Mark, *and agree with it.* Mark makes mistakes in his review of this field. That's practically inevitable, I've seen nobody pick this up and get it all right immediately. I'm still picking gnats out of my teeth, after three years of pretty intensive study. (I study by writing, and learn by seeing experts pick it apart, when they are kind enough to do so.) So help him. You helped me, Jed, with your generosity, as you helped many others. Mark, please meet Jed Rothwell. He can be a bit cranky, but I assure you, he's worth knowing. And, by the way, meet Edmund Storms. Likewise he may seem to be cranky, but he's one of the most patient disputants I've encountered. I disagree with him frequently, and he gets irritated, but keeps on ticking. If you have a question about cold fusion, as to the experimental work that has been done, he's the expert, he probably has the broadest knowledge. His physics sucks. (Abd
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: About the sensationalizers and entrepreneurs who make claims, beyond Rossi and Defkalion there is Brillouin, and further afield, there are Lattice Energy, the Rohner brothers and Nanospire. We have a lot of fun analyzing their claims in great detail here. But one should resist putting them all in the LENR basket. Yup. I assume they are LENR but I have no proof of that. I do not even know if these claims are real. To further add to the confusion that exists in the wild and wooly world of free energy, some ambitious individuals have taken it upon themselves to make a distinction between LENR and cold fusion, and to discount the latter. Yeah. The magnetic motor people, the Swiss ML Testakica, the Orgone energy people, and on, and on. Who knows what to make of them. I ignore them. I assume they are fruitcakes. But I have not investigated them and I have no proof of anything. I cannot dismiss a claim I know nothing about. I never upload anything to LENR-CANR other than the hydride metal lattice claims. I am not opposed to these other claims, but I assume our readers are looking for information on hydride LENR, not magnetic motors. People interested in that should see http://pesn.com/ All of this is a recipe for boundless and eternal confusion unless one carefully picks a reference point and proceeds from there. A respected researcher such as Ed Storms or Michael McKubre is a good place to start with regard to demarcating LENR, specifically. Exactly. It is this smaller set of claims that Jed and Ed Storms are discussing. And that is what we know about. Don't ask me about magnet motors. Gene Mallove was interested in them but I do not want to spread myself that thin. The subject matter of this list ranges much further than that and gets into claims that are delightfully ludicrous and even possibly fraudulent. Some of that stuff may be fraudulent. I have no way of knowing. I wouldn't invest in it! For all I know, Rossi might be fraudulent. He sure acts like it sometimes! Like a con-man from central casting. I doubt he is a fraud though, because I know people who have given him large sums of money, and none of them have complained he defrauded them. I also doubt it because he is so over-the-top, I can't imagine he would get away with fleecing anyone. I am not a policeman or a private investigator. It is none of my business whether he is or is not a fraud. I have no way of checking, and no interest in checking. I would not invest any money with him because he is mercurial, not because I suspect him of fraud. I have read a lot of history. Many great inventors were sharp dealers. Steve Jobs fleeced Wozniak and others, and both of them made a business of stealing telephone service. Edison was not someone you wanted to do business with. Bill Gates likes business deals in which he ends up paying nothing yet somehow holding the cards and the IP. Around 1911 the Wright brothers hired a young fellow to develop something and did not pay him several months until he drifted away, bemused but wiser. He wrote a charming memoir about it. William Shockley was not a sharp dealer and not dishonest, but he was a terrible person to work for. Paranoid and controlling. You would not want to cut a business deal with him. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 05:04 PM 12/29/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. Great, Mark. How do you want to approach this, to find out? We can tell you that the Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect is the result of small amounts of deuterium being converted to helium. That's nuclear fusion. The mechanism is unknow, but the reaction is real and is amply confirmed. The scientific method has led us to this conclusion. It remains falsifiable, but it is *totally consistent* with the experimental record. Which also shows that the FPHE is unreliable, erratic, variable, downright cantankerous. So when someone claims a device that produces lots of heat reliably, it may easily not be real. It's beyond or outside the state of the art. So consider it as unknown. Not to be assumed to be real, but not necessarily fake. Here is the problem. The FPHE is unreliable because the site for the reaction is probably cracks of a just-so size in the surface of palladium hydride. It's been difficult to get just the right conditions for the effect to work at all, but there are protocols where almost all cells show anomalous heat. And then they don't. The conditions for the reaction are not stable. It also looks like the reaction may itself poison the conditions. In any case, suppose that someone has scaled up. You should realize that Pons and Flesichmann deliberately scaled their work down, because of that meltdown. They did not know -- and we still don't know -- just how bad that meltdown might have been. This *is* fusion, and if they somehow had gotten the reaction *just right*, they might have lost not only the apparatus and the lab bench and a few inches of concrete floor, they might have lost the building. Or the campus. Really. This is *fusion.* It's only safe *if* the reaction is small. The nickel-hydrogen researchers have largely scaled up. So they are seeing more power. But. Is it safe? And is it *sustainable.* If a cell produces kilowatts of power, but that dies down after a couple of days, it's almost useless (unless you can cheaply refuel). There is a major possibility that would explain Rossi's evasiveness and failure to deliver on promises. He's actually got something, but ... it's not *just* right, it isn't reliable, it doesn't seem to last and he keeps believing that if he just tweaks it this way or that, it will keep operating. That's *speculation*, Mark, but reliability is the problem with cold fusion, *not reality*. We could get massive power from cold fusion devices, already, if we were prepared for them to work, sometimes, better than we expected! No, at this point attempts to scale up are seriously dangerous and unnecessary. If we can make a small device that reliably produces, say, ten watts, we can then make a large device that produces a kilowatt or more. If you want to know what is real, don't look much at Rossi. Celani, okay, he's a scientist. That does not mean that his device works, i.e,. his public results may be artifact, but it's being openly tested. Brillouin is working with SRI. If you want the real skinny in the field, as to practical work, the person to talk with would be Michael McKubre. He's widely respected and deserves it. The Defkalion people are not like Rossi, they do not appear to be crazy, and they have been working with some real scientists, such as Vysotskii, but they are a commercial interest and they are still secretive. Under those conditions, we cannot, as the public, distinguish between hype and reality. Not until they have a product that can be independently tested. My guess is that Rossi and Defkalion are struggling with reliability. Rossi may have *nothing*. He was dismissive when someone suggested control experiments to him. (I.e, run two reactors the same, but maybe one has hydrogen in it and the other has helium or nitrogen.) He said, I already know what happens when I do that. Nothing. He totally missed the point, his answer was that of an inventor, not a scientist. Had a control been run with the demonstration unit, in most or all of his demonstrations, we'd have an understanding of how the input energy affects the behavior of the cell *apart from* a supposed anomalous reaction. Rossi may also be a total con. It's not impossible. Krivit certainly did notice suspicious behavior. And (from recent news on the New Energy Times web site), apparently the Swedish physicists, Essen and Kullander, have *still* not acknowledged their errors. Face-palm. That's truly disappointing. It is *crucial* for scientists to ackowledge error or even simply possible error. Bottom line, it is *entirely possible* that these reports of imminent commercial products are misleading or downright false. Palladium deuteride reactions are proven, established, and the fuel/ash relationship is known. That is not true for nickel and
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 05:28 PM 12/29/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: That's not correct. There is a theory that considers cold fusion as a variation of conventional hot fusion. This is Takahashi's TSC theory. Eek. No. TSC theory isn't a variation of hot fusion. But maybe you could define the words to make it so. TSC is a tetrahedron of hydrogens bound by coherent electrons, which also happen to be in a tetrahedral form, overlapping the protons. As you know, 2 tetrahedrons are shaped into an octahedron. Although this is a rare instance, it makes the hydrogena collapse all the way into atomic size. The electrons absorb the huge potential energies from the protons, so there is no emission of energy up to that point. Well, perhaps you understand Takahashi better than I. But he certainly does not state it this way. The collapse is a condensation. It is not forced. The collapse is like that of a Bose-Einstein Condensate. The reaction is certainly not like hot fusion. It's 4-body fusion, for starters. Takahashi has recently provided a version of his theory that deals with hydrogen. I'm not dealing with that. The actual fusion happens when the condensate reaches a minimum distance. At that point, the nuclei are close enough that normal tunneling produces fusion, 100%, within a femtosecond. In normal hot fusion, the nuclei would not be close enough to each other for there to be enough time, and the simultaneous fusion of four nuclei would be far, far too rate. The proposed reaction could only take place at very *low* temperatures. The starting condition is probably low mutual momentum between two deuterium molecules in confinement. Otherwise they would be able to reach the TS condition withut dissociating. There are several things that can happen after the collapse, but what happens in general is that in usual hot fusion you have the entrance of 2 particles, always, in TSC you everything is synchronized to 3 or more bodies to react. He's only analyzed the symmetrical 4-body problem. Takahashi has *not* detailed what happens after fusion. So, with several bodies, the energy levels of the system is extremely divided until it emitted in bundles of XUV to low energy xrays. That is, around 0.5KeV to 10KeV. This energy is extremely well absorbed by all kinds of matter, in fact, it is of the best absorbed wave bands and even something as thin as 1 micrometer or a few micrometers of air can absorb killowatts without any trace of the original radiation. This is why studies of the Solar Corona are mostly done in balloons or space given that they also happen to shine in this wavelength and any thin atmosphere may absorb all of the original photons. 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Daniel did not respond to what was said. What Mark wrote was correct, except for a quibble. It would be more accurate that the prior application of quantum mechanics to the condensed matter environment led to the prediction that fusion could not occur at any appreciable rate. Pons and Fleischmann falsified that with their experiment, which were designed to test the prediction (not to discover a new energy source). The falsificaiton was not complete until the nuclear ash was discovered and demonstrated to be correlated with evolved anomalous heat. There is other evidence for nuclear reactions in condensed matter, but the heat/helium evidence is far stronger, because of the correlated effects. What is true about Daniel's reponse is that Takahashi's TSC theory uses standard quantum field theory. Most of us connected with the field are of the opinion that no truly new physics is involved, merely a failure to anticipate and apply already-existing physics to unexpected conditions. Who would have thought of calculating the rate of 4-body fusion, for example? (A particle physicist, accustomed to plasma conditions, would think that if 2-body fusion is rare, 3-body fusion is rare upon rare, and 4-body fusion would be downright ridiculous. However, Takahashi was put in the trail of multibody fusion by his experimental finding that, with *hot fusion*, in experiments where palladium deuteride was bombarded by deuterons, the 3-body fusion rate was enhanced by 10^26 over naive expectation. That's *huge*.)
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Well, take a look at this paper, which was presented this month in JCF13 earlier this month: http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057 Not after the fusion, but well, some ideas of what might happen during fusion. 2012/12/30 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com He's only analyzed the symmetrical 4-body problem. Takahashi has *not* detailed what happens after fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
