As a pragmatic skeptic, I'm looking for a cold fusion anomaly of any kind that has been described in exhaustive detail and which Believer's and Agnostics have discussed throughly and have been unable to discount -- I submit that the paper that Jed Rothwell cites in this thread is very sparse on details -- are there any other reports that describe these 7 runs, of which 2 seemed to give excess heat?
The claims about Toyota's successes are indeed extraordinary evidence: " They achieved high reproducibility, routinely triggering boil offs in 64 cells at a time. The work culminated with cells that ran for weeks at boiling temperature, at 40 to 100 W. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf [ 9 pages ] This project was terminated because of politics and disputes over money between Toyota and other companies, not because the research itself failed." -- Jed Rothwell "Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. RESULTS OF ICARUS 9 EXPERIMENTS RUN AT IMRA EUROPE T. Roulette, J, Roulette, and S. Pons IMRA Europe, S.A., Centre Scientifique Sophia Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne , FRANCE INTRODUCTION We describe herein the construction, testing, calibration and use of a high power dissipation calorimeter suitable for the measurements of excess enthalpy generation in Pd / Pd alloy cathodes during the electrolysis of heavy water electrolytes at temperatures up to and including the boiling point of the electrolyte. With the present design, power dissipation up to about 400W is possible. Excess power levels of up to ~250% of the input power have been observed with these calorimeters in some experiments. Extensions of the design to include recombination catalysts on open and pressurized cells will be the subject of a future report." 2 of 7 runs, months long, gave excess heat. no details about how the Pd cathodes were prepared and changed. no references are given. how qualified are T. and J. Roulette?" Did Joshua Cude ever comment on this report? within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:11 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are a lot of opinions that can dramatically lower one's evolutionary > fitness if expressed. For example, when Moses came down with his tablets > and was, shall we say, depressed by the reception -- he asked for the > "opinion" of those around him and those who agreed with him were then > ordered to kill everyone else. > > Civilization HO!!! > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:00 PM, William Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 May 2013, Joshua Cude wrote: >> >>> I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b, >>> so >>> I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest >>> replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it. >>> >> >> Or, just stick with the greater world of weird-but-nonCF subjects, where >> you see that the evidence is not yet decisive, and there's low chance of >> triggering a Believer vs. Debunker debate. This isn't a CF-only forum, >> though it tends to function as one! :) >> >> I push the crackpot-friendly aspect as a long-time experiment in >> "Provisional Acceptance" of crazy hypotheses. Currently in science, at >> least where weird topics are concerned, we instead operate with a >> philosophy of Provisional Disbelief, where we allow the evidence convince >> us to change our minds. But since disbelief is itself a strong bias, what >> happens if we test the opposite technique, and provisionally accept weird >> topics in order to study them? Just try it, and everyone attacks you: >> "You actually BELIEVE in that crap?!! ANYONE WHO TAKES THAT STUFF >> SERIOUSLY IS A CRACKPOT." And of course the uncritical Believers want to >> welcome you into the fold. >> >> This above situation strongly suggests that certain topics have never >> been given a chance in the past. If each time someone tries to give them a >> chance, and is stopped by colleages, then we may actually have no idea >> whether those topics are truely Woo or not, since nobody is allowed to take >> them seriously enough to properly "do the homework" before making an >> informed decision. If we have to take on the (perceived) crackpot mantle >> in order to do proper homework, then that's exactly what's needed: declare >> oneself to be a True Believer Raving Loonie, then have at it. (Perhaps use >> a fake name here in order to protect one's professional rep.) >> >> http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.**html<http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html> >> "Even so, I believe that many scientists have a habit of rejecting new >> ideas because they unknowingly maintain an illusory worldview which is >> based on concensus of colleagues, rather than upon evidence, and as a >> result they become irrational. They become very intolerant of all ideas >> which violate that consensus, and will instantly and thoughtlessly >> reject the evidence supporting such ideas. This forum is for >> scientist-types (including amateurs!) with a low tolerance for anything >> resembling mob-rule, and a high tolerance for those crazy hypotheses. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) >> William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website >> billb at amasci com http://amasci.com >> >> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair >> Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci >> >> >
