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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 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
>
>

Reply via email to