http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.html
Some good posts, very prominent. Larsen gets in first, not too bad, but still essentially attacking the mainstream CF community.
There is a big problem with Larsen's approach. He's suggesting that people look at his work as a "sensible explanation for LENR phenomena." He's overlooked that the big problem is that people don't believe that LENR phenomena exist. They aren't going to slog through explanations of phenomena they don't believe exist. The phenomena must be established first. Excess heat. Helium. (the Big Two). Transmutations. Radiation. Etc.
Think about the 2004 DoE review. The way the result is often stated is as it was stated in the original analysis. The panel was evenly divided among those who believed that evidence for excess heat was conclusive and those thinking that it was not convincing. One-third of the panel believed that evidence for nuclear origin for the heat was "somewhat convincing."
But how many of those who don't think that the evidence for excess heat is convincing are going to even consider a nuclear origin for what they aren't convinced exists? So the way that I state it is that two-thirds of those who accepted excess heat believed the evidence for nuclear origin was somewhat convincing.
(And, of course, that was a shallow review, and cursed with some reviewers who obviously weren't going to accept LENR no matter what was shown, and they roughly said that. Given this intransigence, the review outcome is properly seen as much more positive. Even neglecting that, it was a sea change from 1989, where the moderating language in the review conclusions was forced by the Nobel-prize-winning co-chair, on threat of resignation. Similar language in 2004 was actually consensus. It says unanimous in the report, which is surprising, given the curmudgeons. Maybe they still recognized the need for research to clear up the matter and show the CF fanatics once and for all where and how they are wrong. I wish that had been the skeptical position in 1989!)
And so how many scientists who aren't convinced that excess heat is being found, that helium is being found, and that the two measurements are correlated, are going to take the time to pour over and think carefully about a new proposal for a process not accepted and (as Larsen might believe) not understood, when those who *are* convinced of the reality aren't going there? I'd guess about zero.
This was the problem: those who weren't convinced by excess heat used the absence of theory as an excuse. But providing them with a theory isn't going to convince them! It's a total error. What needs to be known, and widely, and as clearly as possible, is that there are solid experimental results that cannot be explained, as far as anything anyone has thought of beyond fraud and pure and comprehensive delusion to the point of effectively lying, by anything other than a nuclear process. What process? That is an *entirely different question*! And, it should be no surprise, a very difficult one. About all that can be said about it is that it mostly involves the conversion of deuterium to helium and thus can qualify as "fusion," no matter what mechanism is inside the black box. "Fusion" is not actually a mechanism, because there are many possible mechanisms which could produce the effect of fusion. But there is quite likely more than one mechanism as well, which explains much of the confusion.
I see that my friend Kirk Shanahan got in his licks. "Calibration constant shift," seems to be about the only thing he cares about. Sure, could be a problem with calorimetry. But underneath the hood of that objection, I found, is that Kirk believes there is a heat anomaly, merely non-nuclear. It's local, it affects the calorimetry. How this could affect all the different forms of calorimetry, how it could cause measured excess heat to be correlated with measured helium, is completely beyond me, and when I attempted to question him, he diverted the issue to my supposed lack of intelligence and qualifications, as I recall. Every experiment he explains away with some theory, totally unproven and often completely preposterous if you actually know the experimental details, the controls, etc. But at least he's a damn critic! They are hard to come by these days, any that actually know the literature. There are a number of people active the last two days or so that simply repeat old, very tired and very discredited arguments that wouldn't last a few minutes in a real debate held with an informed audience. Arguments based on the non-existence of something that can be easily shown, like reproductions of the F-P effect. Arguments from lack of understanding (if we don't understand some phenomenon, it must not exist!) Arguments from impracticality (If CF is real, how come I can't buy a cold fusion hot water heater?) Argument from alleged foolishness of an opponent (They are all stuck on dreams of cheap power.) And on and on. The only way someone like Shanahan can maintain his position is that discussions are never allowed to complete. He just can't do it, he gets angry and contemptuous.
That cold fusion is gaining popularity is undeniable, yet there he is, denying it. "Same old cadre of personages." Shanahan has been doing this since the early 1990s, I looked back. I've been discussing cold fusion for a year. Robert Duncan was brought to it only a little earlier. Naturwissenschaften started publishing CF papers, what, about five years ago? The frequency is increasing greatly. The American Chemical Society started holding sessions again in 2007, wasn't it? upped the ante in 2009 substantially, and really upped it in 2010, having published the LENR Sourcebook with Oxford University Press in 2008. Shanahan is incapable of seeing what's in front of his face, no wonder he can't understand what's going on in the field.
abcxyz misunderstood the issue with calorimetry. There is no need for more accurate calorimetry (except for certain details, like trying to find the exact heat/helium ratio, and the big obstacle is helium capture and measurement, not the calorimetry). There is a place for cheap but still reliable calorimetry, that's what Miles is working on. abcxyz is imagining that the effects are tiny. Some are, but many aren't. I'm not bothering to respond, though. Someone else can. Be gentle.
