Thanks Abd for that clear explanation, As usual you are very strict with the required level of proof.
I have gathered some data that I think valid, but please all here correct me if I'm wrong. As far as i know, NiH heat anomaly was known sine 89 with some ignored experience by Piantelli. in 93 I have been reading among the thousands of abstracts on CF, few results about NiH , yet like everybody of that time I took them as minors... about He4/Heat correlation, the story of the Report41 of ENEA is instructive. It have been rejected, while clearly superior in quality to many papers accepted by Science, and by the 41one review it have been proposed to (is it really 41? look like a joke) (see that topic http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=451 ) about the condition to trigger LENR in PdD experiments, the most complete paper seems to be that report of ENEA at ICCF15 : (see http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=674 ) ENEA have a strange story about CF, and the report: hystory of CF at ENEA that you can find in the same forum can show you why Italy is well represented in CF. to understand the sociology/psychiatry of LENR you should looks at the story of gas permeation experiments started by NASA GRC, then tsighua uni+infinicon, then Biberian, the Nasa GRC again... see http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=474 the way that NASA GRC claim discretely that they validated heat anomaly without doubt in 89, is strange since their report just prove they refuse to fund needed experiments to be sure... They lie, discretely, to look pioneer while they have been denier until Spawar get public. There is (only) one great reason to doubt about LENR being real, it is only that one cannot accept that on the whole planet, the greatest brains, reject LENR without even a question, while there is visibly so clear, validated, replicated, precise, intense, evidences... any trusting citizen will rationally assume that these evidences are faked, because we cannot accept so huge collective delusion. Don't tell me about the constraint of replication, since any scientist having learned history know that at the beginning of a new science, replication is hard... Don't talk me about impossibility, since any scientist knowing quantum physics in lattice, know that we can be surprised... All the mainstream excuse don't hold 5 minute facing an historian of science or a semiconductor physicist. BTW I've been trained to micro-electronics, and the few of QM and history I've learned make me easily accept LENR as not breaking any physics law. It is shocking how the critics repeat stupid claim (like thermodynamic law broken, coulomb barrier, reliability...) at that level of competence, while any student should be fired of PhD course for such a bad excuse. The case of intelligent rebuttal of LENR , not using those stupid excuses are rare... If you read the appendix "patterns of denial" by Roland Benabou, and his key paper "Groupthink: collective delusion in organizations and market", the situation is less surprising. http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf 2012/10/25 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > Well, Mr. Gibbs, while I appreciate your reporting on Defkalion, you > continue to confuse and conflate two separate issues. > > 1. The reality of cold fusion as a physical phenomenon. > 2. The existence of practical applications. > > The kind of information you request below is entirely focused, in terms of > what you want, on validated practical applications. At this point, those > don't really exist, and it's a matter of speculation and whom to trust as > to whether anything is coming soon. > > But the reality of cold fusion is not in question any more, not in the > scientific journals, at least. There is still a lot of held opinion out > there, but it hasn't been seen in the journals for almost a decade. The > actual evidence that this was real was available with the publication of > Miles' helium measurements by 1993, and with the confirmation of Miles' > measurements after that. > > You wrote, in your article: > > Unfortunately it turned out that the Fleischmann and Pons experiment was >> not reliably reproducible. In the academic fracas that followed, both men’s >> reputations were ruined and the field was quickly relegated to the domain >> of “fringe” science along with perpetual motion, telekinesis, and >> anti-gravity. >> > > "Reliably reproducible" is not a requirement for scientific validation of > a phenomenon. Some phenomena are difficult to reproduce, generally because > there are unknown or difficult-to-control conditions. However, what Miles > found and reported in 1993 was that, while the amount of heat produced in a > series of cold fusion cells was not easily predicted, the cells produced > helium proportionally to the heat measured. > > That was an astonishing result at the time, because helium was not > expected to be the main product, and far more helium was being produced > than would be expected from the expected ordinary deuterium fusion reaction > (which only produces helium in a tiny fraction of the involved fusions). > Indeed, as it turned out, the energy produced is quite close to the > expectation if deuterium is somehow fused to helium with there being no > other products, no gamma rays, no neutrons, no tritium. Basically, no > radiation. > > This work has been amply confirmed, being done with increased accuracy. > There is still a lot of work to do, but the science is now clear, that a > nuclear reaction is responsible for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. That > is no longer being actively contested by anyone who knows the literature; > what we have seen in recent years has only been the internet activity of a > few pseudoskeptical cranks, raising preposterous arguments that ignore the > basic evidence. > > Storms' paper, "Status of cold fusion (2010)" is the basic review recent > of the field, published in Naturwissenschaften, a peer-reviewed > multidisciplinary journal that's been established since 1913. It's > unchallenged, so far. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/** > StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf<http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf> > > However, the reality of cold fusion does not equal practical application. > The effect has been extremely difficult to control. > > You report on recent work with nickel hydride, but that work is *not* > massively confirmed, as was the palladium deuteride work of Pons and > Fleischmann and others (including Miles). We don't know for sure that > nickel hydride even works, though so many people are now working with it, > mostly under commercial secrecy, that there probably is *something* there. > We don't know what the product is, the "ash." (Helium is the ash from > palladium deuteride fusion.) Most importantly, we don't know how reliable > the nickel hydride reaction is. > > One of the likely explanations for all the obfuscation and delay from > Rossi and Defkalion is that they are having difficulty with reliability and > sustainability. How long does one of these cells work? We don't know. > > While mainstream science was apparently quite happy with this situation >> and went about spending billions of dollars on “hot” fusion (there are many >> who claim that cold fusion was systematically marginalized and deprecated >> by establishment scientists), a few “rogue” researchers continued with cold >> fusion research and, over the last few years, evidence has piled up that >> cold fusion may, in fact, be real. >> > > It's just not accurate. The evidence for reality was available by a decade > ago. It was difficult to get anything published, and that's a major story > on its own. It's been covered by a sociologist of science, a book called > Undead Science, by Simon. > > What's been happening recently is the flap about nickel hydride, and > evidence for the reality of of nickel hydride nuclear reactions is still > anecdotal and shady. > > I wrote “may … be real” because until recently the evidence looked >> promising but hardly conclusive. >> > > Again, this confuses the issue. Cold fusion is real, as found with > palladium deuteride, under the right conditions, that's been confirmed by > hundreds of researchers, independently. > > "Promising" would be, again, a reference to practical application. > Scientific evidence can be conclusive for something that isn't at all > promising. > > You must be referring to evidence that a practical application exists. > > > At 01:06 PM 10/21/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: > >> I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people >> have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to >> help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into >> an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a >> list that includes: >> * where >> * when >> * technology >> * run time >> * COP >> * experimenters and affiliations >> * observers and affiliations >> * references >> >> I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the >> reality of cold fusion. >> > >
