I think what people don't get is that there are probably dozens if not at
least a 100 or so labs trying to replicate lugano.   It's likely some % of
those labs are going to make make measurement errors.    And some % of that
are going to report without proper review.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>

> 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]
>> 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