Just get MFMP to replicate Parkhomov. That'll go viral instantly. I find it unlikely it will happen. I'm sure if it could be replicated someone would have already done so by now.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been thinking about a YouTube video 3 to 6 minutes long to > introduce cold fusion. The goal would be to increase interest in the field. > Ideally, it would be great to provoke a viral reaction attracting thousands > of viewers. Possibly even millions. I personally am not capable of making > something like this. It should be done by a professional producer. Here is > what I think it should be like. > > > Three ideas are presented: > > Cold fusion has been widely replicated. > > It remains difficult to replicate because control parameters are difficult > to achieve. > > If researchers learn to control cold fusion, it might become a valuable > source of energy. > > > In more detail, the script would be something like this: > > Cold fusion was announced by professors Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. It > is a nuclear reaction that produces heat without burning chemical fuel. It > produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. It > sometimes produces tritium. Helium and tritium are unmistakable signs of a > nuclear reaction. > > [Display for the above paragraph: A few words perhaps: “Cold fusion was > announced in 1989. It is a nuclear reaction producing heat, helium and > tritium.” No graph of heat and helium because that is too complicated.] > > > Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major > laboratories. This graph shows results from several tests performed at two > different laboratories. When loading exceeds 0.92, the effect turns on. > > [Display: McKubre graph 1, Maximum loading, > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg. > Under graph it says “Combined results from SRI and ENEA (Italian National > Agency for New Technologies, Energy)”] > > > Cold fusion remains difficult to replicate because it occurs under rare > conditions that are difficult to achieve, but when these conditions are > achieved, the reaction always turns on. The strength of the reaction varies > with current density, loading and other control parameters. [1] Again, high > loading and high current density can be difficult to reach, but when > researchers manage to reach them, the reaction always turns on. This graph > also shows that high loading correlates with high heat; each dot represents > one test. [2] Here are similar results from Toyota. [3] > > [Display: 1. > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg, > under graph it says "SRI" The graphs on this screen are animated. 2. > McKubre graph of loading. 3. Kunimatsu graph overlays SRI, label on screen > "IMRA (Toyota research lab)," > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KunimatsuKdeuteriuml.pdf] > > > Cold fusion has reached temperatures and power density roughly as high as > the core of a nuclear fission reactor. If researchers can learn to control > cold fusion and make it occur on demand, it might become a practical source > of energy. It would provide inexhaustible energy for billions of years. > Because it consumes hydrogen in a nuclear process, rather than a chemical > process, the hydrogen generates millions of times more energy than any > chemical fuel such as oil. It would also eliminate the threat of global > warming because it does not produce carbon dioxide. > > Hydrogen fuel is virtually free, and cold fusion devices are small, > relatively simple, and inexpensive. They resemble NiCad batteries. So the > cost of the energy would be low. > > For more information, see LENR.org > > [Links to this paper by McKubre, or something similar: > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf] > > > > NOTES > > The main goal is to attract as many viewers as possible, perhaps even > triggering a viral response. Another goal is to overturn the viewer's > notions about cold fusion, but not by challenging those notions directly or > by arguing. We present the facts and let them speak for themselves. This > has to be technically accurate with no exaggerations or false promises. > > The choice of messages seems self-evident to me. What else do we have to > say? The difficult part is to present this in a way that people find > compelling. Will people find this compelling? Can it go viral? I do not > know. > > This draft may present too much detail. It may need fewer topics with more > repetition. This text takes me ~2.5 minutes to read. With animated graphs > and some pauses it would be 3 or 4 minutes. A few more details, with more > repetition would bring it to 6 minutes. I am tempted to add this detail > from Roulette et al, but I think it is too much, and it strains credulity: > "A few cold fusion devices the size of a coin have produced heat at 100 W > continuously for months. This much chemical fuel would last only a few > minutes." > > The trick is to leave out details while giving viewers a link to a > document so that they can learn more if they want to. This is not intended > to educate people so much as to intrigue them. To grab their attention. > This resembles a movie trailer. > > I would ask McKubre and other experts to review this. It would be best to > have an experienced advertising copywriter contribute. Someone who has done > advertisements targeted to the general public for technical products from > companies such as IBM. > > Good graphics and production values are essential. They are more important > than most people in this field realize. I think it would be best to have a > professional announcer read the voiceover. The images should be mainly > animated graphs and tables, done by a graphics professional. > > We need to get right to the point and stick to it. No time should be spent > with introductory music or setting the stage. > > I would aim for approximately the level of detail and number of facts > presented in this 6.4-minute video about economics, which has been viewed > 16 million times: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM > > I realize this is a controversial video and that some readers here may > disagree with the conclusions presented in it. I do not wish to trigger > political arguments about economics. I cite it because it is: effective; > well produced; short; it went viral; and it presents what might be > considered a dry subject and technical facts roughly as complicated as > those of cold fusion. It has an underlying, barely spoken theme of tragedy > and large consequences to society, as does the Gates Foundation video on > infant mortality and population growth. The cold fusion video should also > hint at momentous potential consequences, more by tone than by beating the > viewer over the head yelling "THIS IS IMPORTANT!" Again, let the facts > speak for themselves. > > Note how many times this economics video repeats and emphasizes the same > basic points. This would be tedious to hear in a video or lecture that > lasted 20 minutes, but in six minutes it works. In advertisements and TED > talks to you see the same points are reiterated again and again. > > There is a long list of things I would NOT include in the video. No photos > of Fleischmann and Pons; no photos of labs or equipment; no photos of > chimneys belching smoke; no images of the voiceover narrator talking; no > scrolling list of laboratories that replicated; nothing about Rossi or > nickel; no mention of palladium; and as Dennis Cravens emphasized this will > not have one word about the controversy or any of the views of the > opposition. Let them make their own videos. This will be presented as > accomplished fact. > > - Jed > >
