Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/06/self-interest-and-lenr-edmund-storms/']Thanks to Georgehants for pointing out this comment from Edmund Storms on Peter Gluck’s Ego Out site regarding the initial reception of LENR/Cold Fusion when Dr. Storms was working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, USA. The comment can be found here, along with Peter’s usual excellent roundup of news and comment […][/feedquote]
  • the key quote from Edmund Storms is


    I watched how the attitude toward LENR changed at LANL. I watched as tolerance changed to hostility. The change was not based on lack of reproducibility. I and many other people were able to cause the effect. Besides, many phenomenon are initially difficult to control and are not rejected for this reason. The rejectors only used this claim as a fig leaf to hide another reason. I believe the rejection had a more sinter reason. The real reason was simply protection of self interest, initially by people funded by the hot fusion program.


    In 1989, hot fusion was in trouble because Congress was getting increasingly impatient with the slow progress. I believe certain very powerful people realized that LENR would siphon funds away from hot fusion and eventually kill it. They could not make this fear public so they set about convincing the public that LENR was bad science, which was easy to do. This was power politics at its worst. This worked because Fleischmann and the rest of us were playing the honest game of understanding nature for everyone’s benefit. In contrast, a few powerful people were only protecting themselves using any dishonest tool they could find. We and they were not playing by the same rules and we still aren’t.


    We see this process unfolding every day in Congress and being applied to a range of issues. Facts and what is real do not count in government these days. Self-interest rules. We in LENR have not created a self-interest for anyone of importance outside of a few groups having special needs, such as NASA. Even these groups have to hide their work to avoid being tarred by the bad science claim. In short, no one of importance needs LENR. Once the need is demonstrated, the attitude will change instantly. Perhaps Rossi will show that need or perhaps another country will create the need for the US to take an interest. We have to wait and see where the need is revealed before we can expect acceptance.


    For some , the oil company behaved sincerely as they did not consider LENR was a serious affair, even as proven real, compared to their core business.
    Only hot fusionist could consider LENR as a danger.


    Here Edmund remind us that many key arguments send to the face of naive newcomers, are simply BS .
    There is many phenomena that were initially harder to replicate, and the measurement was clearly replicated when the Fatwa against LENR was cast.
    There are phenomenons that are accepted despite no theory can explain them.


    Strangely this is so hard to accept, that rational people often imagine that behind those BS arguments there was necessarily real good arguments. This is even an argument of skeptics to prove LENR is not real, as any rational scientist have accepted such claims.


    The real reasons are simply research budget and academic ego.

  • Based on my understanding, now, of LENR evidence I'm going to disagree with Storms's assessment here.


    Quote

    I watched how the attitude toward LENR changed at LANL. I watched as tolerance changed to hostility. The change was not based on lack of reproducibility. I and many other people were able to cause the effect. Besides, many phenomenon are initially difficult to control and are not rejected for this reason.


    MFMP have not found reproducible LENR experiments that show definite anomalies, so I don't agree with this. The justification here is vague. Cause the effect is an interpretation, not an observation. The issue is that few mainstream scientists agree with Storms' interpretation.


    While "many other phenomena" are difficult to control and not rejected, they are accepted as "phenomena" rather than "experimental lacunae" only if they meet the bar for experimental or theoretical consistency.


    Thus: a bulletproof observation at odds with accepted theory - say GR adjustments to orbital motion - is accepted as a phenomena when it is repeatable and clearly well beyond experimental error, even if no theory exists to predict it. In this case Gr did exist and predicted the precise form of the errors in new abservations - pretty impressive!


    Or: a set of fragmentary observations, each not strong enough on its own, may be tied together coherently by a new theory that predicts all of them. The fact that diverse data is predicted by a single theory is a strong merit for that theory.


    Finally: a whole load of coherent experimental data about a system not yet understood (no established predictions) can lead to many alternate hypotheses and will be studied with interest as these develop and one (or perhaps some) predominate. For example pulsars.


    LENR does not follow any of these models for "phenomena that are not rejected". It has no theory. It has no reproducible strong observations. The (weak) data that comprise it thus far do not cohere and do not follow predictions. There are no predictions. This fits "experimental error+" better than any other hypothesis, and indeed the LENR community have yet to come up with any single hypothesis that explains most of the data exactly because the data is incoherent.


    Quote

    The rejectors only used this claim as a fig leaf to hide another reason.


    This statement is opinion, and as I've pointed out above there is a strong argument for attaching a low probability to LENR, given current evidence, based on methodology that is consistently applied to all new discoveries.


    Quote

    I believe the rejection had a more sinter reason. The real reason was simply protection of self interest, initially by people funded by the hot fusion program.In 1989, hot fusion was in trouble because Congress was getting increasingly impatient with the slow progress. I believe certain very powerful people realized that LENR would siphon funds away from hot fusion and eventually kill it. They could not make this fear public so they set about convincing the public that LENR was bad science, which was easy to do.


    Scientists are not easy to convince, not not generally subject to mind control. That is, some may so be, but there are lots of them and it needs only a few to find a new extraordinarily useful discovery like LENR for this to become accepted.


    The whole point about LENR is that whatever conspiracy theory you like, it is strongly in the interests of individual scientists who have actually discovered it to publicise this. They would get Nobel prizes and immense acclaim. And if it worked, so stopping the hot fusion programme, those scientists who discovered it would get funding - together with a lot of the nuclear physicists doing hot fusion who would happily look at new and more viable problems.


    It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked. This conspiracy theory is Storms making excuses for the fact that LENR evidence is weak and therefore not taken seriously by scientists.


    Quote

    This was power politics at its worst. This worked because Fleischmann and the rest of us were playing the honest game of understanding nature for everyone’s benefit. In contrast, a few powerful people were only protecting themselves using any dishonest tool they could find. We and they were not playing by the same rules and we still aren’t.We see this process unfolding every day in Congress and being applied to a range of issues. Facts and what is real do not count in government these days. Self-interest rules.


    The problem is that self-interest also rules for those people stuck on LENR who have staked their life and credibility on it. Very difficult for them to backtrack and say - "hey folks, you know what, it does not work". Whereas for the vast majority of normal scientists an extraordinary new discovery with massive commercial potential would be strongly in their self interest to promote - if it existed. Scientists are used to stuff not being easily commercialisable - so just the existence of LENR would be a very big deal and make its promoter famous. So this self-interest argument is completely teh wrong way round.


    Quote

    We in LENR have not created a self-interest for anyone of importance outside of a few groups having special needs, such as NASA. Even these groups have to hide their work to avoid being tarred by the bad science claim. In short, no one of importance needs LENR. Once the need is demonstrated, the attitude will change instantly. Perhaps Rossi will show that need or perhaps another country will create the need for the US to take an interest. We have to wait and see where the need is revealed before we can expect acceptance.


    That is absurd. The need for LENR is well understood by everyone. That is the reason it is so popular - it meets our wish fullfillment. The science establishment cannot suppress definite extraordinary results, and as above, if there are no definite extraordinary results there is no likelihood of LENR existing. But if it did exist - any scientist would jump at the chance to champion it - and the first thing they would do is what MFMP tried - get bulletproof evidence.


    The only difference is that when after long efforts such evidence could not be found, most normal scientists would say: "well, it is a shame, but the evidence for LENR is very weak, I'll do something else".

  • Quote

    There is many phenomena that were initially harder to replicate, and the measurement was clearly replicated when the Fatwa against LENR was cast.There are phenomenons that are accepted despite no theory can explain them.


    OK, so give me your one best shot at such a phenomenon - and lets see how it measured up according to my post above relative to LENR.

  • Thomas,


    I think you are over complicating this. Getting so caught up in the science minutiae of scientific discovery, you miss the forest for the trees. Does it really matter that: "cause the effect" is an interpretation, not an observation as you dwell on? Or that there is no theory by which to construct an experiment around (although Storms/NASA/SPAWAR/Brillouin did, or are doing that now)? If LENR doesn't progress as the textbook says it should, does that invalidate the results being found in labs around the world?


    While you pontificate yourself into believing LENR is simply a pseudoscience perpetuated by mass denial and misreading of observed facts...each and every one of which is within margin of error as you conclude, and self-deluding lower tier scientists, yours and Joshua Cudes colleague's...those in the labs doing all the work, seem convinced enough to carry on. In just the past few years, we have seen the opening of SKINR, LENR research departments at Texas Tech University here in the states, and Tohoku University in Japan. The Ni Energy Research Park in China, and governmental funding commitments to LENR study/research in Japan, Russia, and maybe in India. There is much more I could add to that list by the way.


    So one question Thomas; would you like for all to cease their research right now, shut down their institutes, discontinue funding, simply because you and Popeye think they are all wrong? That what they are seeing is scientifically in error, deluding themselves, seeing what they want to see because they have "invested" in believing, so therefore a waste of time and money?


    If you ask me, I think we should all be encouraging, not discouraging this renewed focus on the science...if it is indeed a science (you guys could be right). Get to the bottom of it once and for all.

  • Quote

    I think you are over complicating this. Getting so caught up in the science minutiae of scientific discovery, you miss the forest for the trees. Does it really matter that: "cause the effect" is an interpretation, not an observation as you dwell on?


    It does not matter, except that it means there is no reason to follow it. The believer mantra here is that hide-bound scientists don't pay attention to empirical data. It is the reverse - they pay more attention and don't jump onto the first wish-fullfillment interpretation they find.




    Quote

    Or that there is no theory by which to construct an experiment around (although Storms/NASA/SPAWAR/Brillouin did, or are doing that now)? If LENR doesn't progress as the textbook says it should, does that invalidate the results being found in labs around the world?


    The results are perfectly valid. Why do you drag LENR into it?


    Quote

    While you pontificate yourself into believing LENR is simply a pseudoscience perpetuated by mass denial and misreading of observed facts...each and every one of which is within margin of error as you conclude, and self-deluding lower tier scientists, yours and Joshua Cudes colleague's...those in the labs doing all the work, seem convinced enough to carry on.


    There are always people - many respectable - who follow any pseudo-science. Look at creationism - homeopathy - etc. There is nothing wrong with them doing that, it is a free world, but it would be unwise to take such minority backing as validation - which is what you do.


    Quote

    In just the past few years, we have seen the opening of SKINR, LENR research departments at Texas Tech University here in the states, and Tohoku University in Japan. The Ni Energy Research Park in China, and governmental funding commitments to LENR study/research in Japan, Russia, and maybe in India. There is much more I could add to that list by the way. So one question Thomas; would you like for all to cease their research right now, shut down their institutes, discontinue funding, simply because you and Popeye think they are all wrong? That what they are seeing is scientifically in error, deluding themselves, seeing what they want to see because they have "invested" in believing, so therefore a waste of time and money?


    I think you are reading something I've never said. I've got nothing against scientists working on LENR experiments. I wish they would do it better, and more rigorously, because I think sloppy practice, if disseminated, is a big waste of other people's time. Unusually, I like anomalies and enjoy working them out so when there are real anomalies from experiments I'm very happy to spend time thinking about them (and similarly, though I would never tell others what to do, enjoy it when others do the same).

    Quote


    If you ask me, I think we should all be encouraging, not discouraging this renewed focus on the science...if it is indeed a science (you guys could be right). Get to the bottom of it once and for all.


    Shane, I think you have maybe not been following this stuff for more than a few years. "Get to the bottom of it all"? I wish.


    Were LENR what you say, that would be possible, with exciting positive results.


    Given that it is almost certainly what I say, can you imagine any evidence that would make all the people following it reach a definitive negative conclusion? Or even can you imagine evidence that would make one of them do do?


    LENR is inherently undisprovable so can go on forever. It could be proved by just one good experiment. Don't hold your breath.

  • That's fine Thomas, I see you are just curious and mean no ill will to your colleagues in pursuit of their beliefs. Understandably though...and I can't fault you, you do dislike those doing sloppy work...concluding LENR/LENT/AHE where you, in your reading of their results, see only artefacts, or nothing at all. Rightfully, it is their job to convince their peers of what they claim. If they can't, and their peers are being honest (unlike those Storms describes here), then they just have to try harder.


    Honestly, I think LENR needs people like you to ensure it's researchers maintain a high quality of performance. Even those in the thick of the field such as McKubre, have complained of the few doing shoddy work. That seems to be changing rapidly however, as I referenced in my post the emergence of numerous quality research initiatives, staffed with the finest of equipment, and higher tier scientists.


    With so much in play now, I am confident that soon, real soon hopefully, you will have some experiments that meet your high standards, while proving LENR once and for all.

  • Thomas,


    Joshua wrote, without a doubt, the most insighful post on LENR and why, according to him, it is pseudoscience, over on our other website (Alain doesn't like that site linked to). After reading Dr. Storms comments, I thought of it immediately and went searching so I could copy it here, but gave up.


    If you get bored, maybe you could find it? I remember you being impressed with it too.


    With so many here involved in the science, I thought it might make for an interesting read.

  • Quote

    Honestly, I think LENR needs people like you to ensure it's researchers maintain a high quality of performance. Even those in the thick of the field such as McKubre, have complained of the few doing shoddy work. That seems to be changing rapidly however, as I referenced in my post the emergence of numerous quality research initiatives, staffed with the finest of equipment, and higher tier scientists.


    Shane, I await the good quality work with positive results. Perhaps you know some? I can't think of any.

  • Maybe Shane was thinking of the heroes at Defkalion? In addition to Rossi, of course, and his plants, and his 18 hour workday. Or those geniuses at Brillouin who use people related to their own investors to vet themselves. Oh yeah -- this all inspires confidence.

  • Thomas,


    Thomas said: I await the good quality work with positive results. Perhaps you know some? I can't think of any"

    If anyone knows what you seek, they will be right here on this website. I've seen Abd point out some good stuff. Alain posted a big list some months ago.


    As for me knowing?...LOLs, Anything with a positive result looks like "quality work" to me. Anyways, you are the scientist...not me. Although after following this for 5 years I'm starting to feel like one. ;)

  • Don't move the debate.
    In 1993 it was clear LENr was real to one of the best skeptic but competent electrochemist , Heinz Gerisher, two other best Fleischmann and Bockris being "believers" after numerous experiments.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf#page=2



    the skeptic were so gullible, in fact so dishonest, that they even swalowed the theory of Gary taubes despite it was impossible.
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…bes-fraud-depiction.shtml


    gullibility of skeptics is endless.

  • Quote

    Don't move the debate.In 1993 it was clear LENr was real to one of the best skeptic but competent electrochemist , Heinz Gerisher, two other best Fleischmann and Bockris being "believers" after numerous experiments.


    If there was clear evidence for LENR in 1993 then doubtless there is clear evidence now. I don't believe what you say, because no-one here has put forward evidence now that is clear.


    Further, were there clear evidence, it could necessarily be replicated and with every replication (if real) it would get clearer. Whatever your conspiracy theory about all normal scientists being self-interested idiots unmoved by Nobel prizes such increasing clarity would win.


    Why, in 12 years, has that not happened?


    PS - I realise there may be evidence you think is clear, that I don't. Please address the "if there were clear evidence, it could be replicated, it would get clearer" by showing me where your "clear evidence" gets better through being replicated with better instrumentation, or better results, etc. Given the billions at stake here that would be bound to happen.

  • A couple of things for Alain:


    1) You were totally fooled by Defkalion as were many or most believers.


    2) Rossi said he heated an entire factory with an ecat in 2007. It's in his original patent application. Do you believe that? If not, he was lying then and how do you know everything he has said is not a lie or a fraud? If you do believe the heater story, I feel sorry for you.

  • what is convincing is the pile of LENR papers , peer reviewed, by various institution.
    especially compared to the no credible paper that find any explanation to those numerous results.


    Defkalion make claims, were good looking ,a dn were stupid enough to lie. they were caught.
    Rossi said he heated some place... let us assume he exaggerate the importance of that place and that it is just one of his COP=3 device looking like a tube.


    anyway who cares, Darden and Woodford have invested after their due diligence.
    unlike you and me they can check what happen.

  • Quote

    what is convincing is the pile of LENR papers , peer reviewed, by various institution.especially compared to the no credible paper that find any explanation to those numerous results.


    When even I look at this vast mound of papers they fit "no LENR" for the reasons given above. They don't fit "LENR". And, if I had missed something you can be sure the many people hoping for LENR would latch onto it and pull out all the stops replicating.


    I think you have fundamentally misunderstood how experimental data is interpreted. There is (obviously) no single theory that explains diverse experimental peculiarities, nor any need for such. However any particular experiment, given effort, time and continued study, can be understood. The Lugano results give a classic example - highly unusual in that the experimenters provided enough detailed data to let that process happen over the internet! All I'd need, to be interested, would be a single LENR experiment that was studied and restudied, and continued to show ever more convincing anomalies. Everyone else would jump on it, so there would be no shortage of restudies.


    Quote

    Defkalion make claims, were good looking ,a dn were stupid enough to lie. they were caught.Rossi said he heated some place... let us assume he exaggerate the importance of that place and that it is just one of his COP=3 device looking like a tube.anyway who cares, Darden and Woodford have invested after their due diligence.unlike you and me they can check what happen.


    Defkalion were, as you say, liars and their convincing (to you and many) results turned out to be fake. I'm not saying that therefore every LENR company is similarly overtly dishonest, but it shows the dangers in accepting that type of interest as validation.


    Quote

    anyway who cares, Darden and Woodford have invested after their due diligence.unlike you and me they can check what happen.


    So, for you, the fact that Darden and Woodford have put money into Rossi is certain validation? That is an unwise argument, especially because Woodford relied on the Lugano results (as Rossi continues to do in patent apps) and they, we know, are wrong.


    Your problem here is that you assume further unspecified DD has been conducted. I think you have little understanding oif how VCs work and the scientific resources they have (none). VCs will rely on statements from scientists. If unwise they will choose scientists like the Swedes who though independent are besotted by Rossi and think they have indisputable evidence of LENR from Lugano when that does not exist. Rather like you, till I and others on the other thread pointed out that both the Lugano COP=3 and the Lugano "acceleration" and the Lugano mismatch between dummy and active measurements were explained from published data by a COP=1 electric heater.

  • Thomas,


    I have to make some comments to your original criticism here:


    "MFMP have not found reproducible LENR experiments" - you really think MFMP have done enough investigations to conclude? I think not. And If Rossi has got "it", he Obviously have some stimulus mechanism that he has not fully revealed.


    "The issue is that few mainstream scientists agree with Storms' interpretation" you probably mean "no mainestream scientists", since LENR was considered pure pathological science from day one. There is nothing to analyse,discuss or agree/disagree upon.


    "....they are accepted ......only if they meet the bar for experimental or theoretical consistency."
    What do you mean ? Like Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes? TGF's That pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning. TGF was discovered in 1994, and 20 years later physicists are still struggling with theories to embrace all the observations.....


    And you think 26 years after Fleischmann and Pons, Cold Fusion should have been setled science If it was real? Let me remind you of the story back in 1989:


    In 1989 Dr. Steven E. Koonin of CALTECH (where he was then an employee) called the F&P claim a result of "incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann". And the physcists at the APS meeting 3.May 1989 bursted into applause.


    So one of the greatest scientists of calorimetry in the 20th century, Martin Fleischmann, was incompetent when it came to measure.....excess heat by calorimetry. What an irony.


    The debunking of cold fusion by the physics community was a Shame of science, and the biggest mistake in science of the 20th century. CF was actually a new discovery, that could have solved much of the global warming problem. But physicists turned their back on Fleischmann and Pons way too early. F&P where right in their excess heat measurements, energies far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But physicists are just like people in general: don't like changes, especially from "outsiders".


    The problem in 1989 and which possibly still exists, is that physicists thinks there are no possibilities of "mysterious" nuclear reactions that would not produce expected gamma rays. The complete herecy of 1989 was that two chemists dared to claim some new unthinkable discovery within the area of physics. Like some outsiders trying to learn the dear physicists something completely new. Well, It took only 40 days for the physicists to shoot them down. Would not help If they had a new theory to explain it. Actually, It would make it only worse, since it would be inconcievable that some non physicists where to both discover a new phenomenon and have the theory to explain it. All physicists knew and still know that with nuclear reactions and fusion follows gamma radiation, and none where measured. So it had to be a pure chemical effect or measurement errors. But nature is full of surprises , and we have not reached the end of science..yet..


    After this event Cold Fusion was put in same category as Ufology, so only the boldest scientists would touch the subject, on the risk of their career.


    Anyhow: there are dusins of LENR theories, but lack of funding and interest in the Scientific community holds back the progress of the field. And no theory will initially be able to explain all phenomena, enough with one testable that can predict some outcome as a start.

  • Thomas


    More criticism of your criticism:


    "Thus: a bulletproof observation at odds with accepted theory...... is accepted as a phenomena when it is repeatable and clearly well beyond experimental error, even if no theory exists to predict it. "


    Well, again you are wrong. F&P had "bursts of heat" in some one of eight electrolytic cells back in 1989. Bursts with power and energy densities far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But the Scientific community had no patience to wait for papers or more info from F&P. Within 40 days (and 40 nights) it was all over, and F&P was left om Their own.


    One of eight probability to observe a mystery is far far better than the frequency of Terrestrial gamma ray flashes in lightning, which still is considered bulletproof with no theory, while F&P was not.


    And F&P did even better later in France, but by then they where forgotten. And no mainstream scientists one would go near this kind of "Ufology"


    And when the deciding institutes concluded "nothing here, move on" in 1989, the remaining Scientific community followed like obedient dogs. No more debate, even when some labs showed excess heat results.Or as Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT said of excess heat if F&P type experiments:"we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are not considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."

  • Thomas,


    Chapter 3 of my criticism of your criticism:


    "Scientists are not easy to convince, not not generally subject to mind control. That is, some may so be, but there are lots of them and it needs only a few to find a new extraordinarily useful discovery like LENR for this to become accepted."


    Haha, you are way too naive. You think scientists are not like the rest of humanity - prefers to follow the pack, don't like changes etc. Etc.


    "The whole point about LENR is that whatever conspiracy theory you like, it is strongly in the interests of individual scientists who have actually discovered it to publicise this."


    Well.......If you want to publicise a new discovery, it has to be Peer reviewed and accepted by "real journals". Since cold fusion one Month after the press conference in 1989 was concluded pure "pathological science", there was no Journals that would publicise and no peers to review papers. And That's been the story ever since.


    Or to repeat what the Nobel Price winner (in physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said of his attempt to publish papers on Cold fusion :
    "What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?


    "It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked."


    Yes it is credible. Yes, LENR is openly described, but not in what is considered "real journals". So physcists lacks the interest and willingness and funding to investigate, since consensus is "nothing there".


    The swedish physcist Stephan Pomp said it something like this : I see no Cold Fusion papers being publicised in credible real Journals, therefore I will not investigate the phenomenon.


    So there we have Catch 22: the physics community will not investigate since papers are not published in " real journals", and CF researchers can not get their papers published, since all know it is pathological science and thereforee there are no one to peer review

  • Well, probably not much more for me to say, but for the sake of completeness:

    Quote

    Thomas,I have to make some comments to your original criticism here:"MFMP have not found reproducible LENR experiments" - you really think MFMP have done enough investigations to conclude? I think not.


    If I am looking for a (claimed) $10,000 note in a haystack and have not yet found it then indeed I have not found it. What I said here is true. Your reinterpretation of the question as "Have MFMP concluded that it will never be possible to get reproducible LENR?" is revealing. That is an question that quite properly many people, including me, could never answer in the positive. I'd be very surprised if MFMP ever did!


    But that is the point. "LENR" is not a scientific theory because it makes no predictions and therefore can never be disproved. What (negative) evidence would cause you to conclude that LENR did not exist?



    Quote

    And If Rossi has got "it", he Obviously have some stimulus mechanism that he has not fully revealed.


    Obviously, but then if he has got "it" his lack of revelation is so large as to make that fact not discernible by neutral external observers, once the incorrect results from the Swedes are noted.


    Quote

    "The issue is that few mainstream scientists agree with Storms' interpretation" you probably mean "all mainstream scientists", since LENR was considered pure pathological science from day one.


    Really? I remember the headlines and the (cautious in most cases) excitement in the scientific community. Rather like the reaction to the recent FTL neutrino experiment, which caused massive interest and steps to replicate. Of course LENR was even more interesting, because so obviously commercially valuable.


    After a long period of attempted reproduction, as well as asking for more details from F&P, people began to lose interest. This was driven by lacl of positive results, not ideology.


    Quote

    There is nothing to analyse,discuss or agree/disagree upon."....they are accepted ......only if they meet the bar for experimental or theoretical consistency."What do you mean ? Like Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes? TGF's That pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning. TGF was discovered in 1994, and 20 years later physicists are still struggling with theories to embrace all the observations.....


    TGFs are an example of a real and reproducible observation of a phenomena which has a number of possible theories within conventional physics, and a few outlandish ones. That is all good, and I don't notice physicists avoiding TGFs


    Here (2005) is an observational paper noting higher than previously realised frequency. The LS in this paper can be summarised as:

    Quote

    Hard x-rays and/or gamma rays have also been detected in thunderclouds and at ground level from natural and triggered lightning strokes (2–5). Acceleration of electrons to high energies in electric fields above thunderstorms was predicted in 1925 by Wilson (6), and this runaway process was recently shown (7) to be capable of avalanche multiplication, making its variants (8–10) good candidates for the TGF parent process.


    The detailed observations give some support for this explanation (while the details remain obscure and exotic ideas can obviously not be ruled out, there seems no need for them):

    Quote

    The position of the high-energy cutoff suggests that the energy of the electrons responsible for the bulk of the bremsstrahlung is on the order of 20 to 40 MeV. The spectrum is reminiscent of that seen once at ground level by Dwyer et al. (5) from triggered lightning. The right panel of Fig. 2 also shows the expected signal from isotropic, thin-target bremsstrahlung of 35-MeV monoenergetic electrons. This is not, of course, a realistic model, but it demonstrates that the correct electron spectrum will be extremely hard. The dashed curve is the model spectrum itself, and the solid curve is its convolution with the instrumental response for comparison with the data. An unmodeled excess at several MeV is apparent, which is expected for beamed TGFs viewed along the beam axis, due to the peaking of the bremsstrahlung cross section at high energies and small angles (23).


    A 2012 summary of evidence + current "best guess" theory:
    http://permalink.lanl.gov/obje…o/lareport/LA-UR-12-26453



    Here is your "challenge":


    Quote

    Lightning and thunderstorm systems in general have been recently recognized as powerful particle accelerators, capable of producing electrons, positrons, gamma-rays and neutrons with energies as high as several tens of MeV. In fact, these natural systems turn out to be the highest energy and most efficient natural particle accelerators on Earth. Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes (TGFs) are millisecond long, very intense bursts of gamma-rays and are one of the most intriguing manifestation of these natural accelerators. Only three currently operative missions are capable of detecting TGFs from space: the RHESSI, Fermi and AGILE satellites. In this paper we review the characteristics of TGFs, including energy spectrum, timing structure, beam geometry and correlation with lightning, and the basic principles of the associated production models. Then we focus on the recent AGILE discoveries concerning the high energy extension of the TGF spectrum up to 100 MeV, which is difficult to reconcile with current theoretical models.


    So: this is classic science. We have some new observations, reproducible, without an obvious explanation. It seems electron acceleration does not pan out for this. This will drive (is driving) theory. Somone will come up with a model that predicts new features of the observations, these will be looked for, and if found the model will gain credibility. There is lots of scope and no extraordinary contradiction of well-backed (by other experiments) theory.


    In this area, existing theory is pretty tentative anyway. Not surprising, no-one has got good internal instrumentation of what happens in lightning flashes. While there is no obvious way to get 100 Mev from available potential there is every possibility of weird effects here, and no-one would say that categorically.


    This counts as:
    (1) reproducible and clear observation
    (2) no clear theory to explain it
    (3) no obvious need to invent new physical laws


    Such things are always interesting and occasionally new physics comes out of them. More usually a new explanation from old physics.


    Compare with LENR: it fails at the first step because there are no reproducible observations o start the ball rolling.



    Quote

    And you think 26 years after Fleischmann and Pons, Cold Fusion should have been setled science If it was real? Let me remind you of the story back in 1989:In 1989 Dr. Steven E. Koonin of CALTECH (where he was then an employee) called the F&P claim a result of "incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann". And the physcists at the APS meeting 3.May 1989 bursted into applause.So one of the greatest scientists of calorimetry in the 20th century, Martin Fleischmann, was incompetent when it came to measure.....excess heat by calorimetry. What an irony.


    Science does not work on celebrity or personalities. F&Ps ideas were not accepted because neither he nor anyone else could reproduce them in a clearer experiment. When effects are real:
    (1) Others can find them
    (2) Concerted effort can make the effects better instrumented and as observations better understood. That never happened.


    Accepting one scientist's word, no matter how famous, is stupid. We are all human, and all can err. That is one way in which science differs from religion.


    Quote


    The debunking of cold fusion by the physics community was a Shame of science, and the biggest mistake in science of the 20th century. CF was actually a new discovery, that could have solved much of the global warming problem.


    You give no evidence for this assertion.

  • Quote

    But physicists turned their back on Fleischmann and Pons way too early. F&P where right in their excess heat measurements, energies far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But physicists are just like people in general: don't like changes, especially from "outsiders".The problem in 1989 and which possibly still exists, is that physicists thinks there are no possibilities of "mysterious" nuclear reactions that would not produce expected gamma rays. The complete herecy of 1989 was that two chemists dared to claim some new unthinkable discovery within the area of physics. Like some outsiders trying to learn the dear physicists something completely new. Well, It took only 40 days for the physicists to shoot them down. Would not help If they had a new theory to explain it. Actually, It would make it only worse, since it would be inconcievable that some non physicists where to both discover a new phenomenon and have the theory to explain it. All physicists knew and still know that with nuclear reactions and fusion follows gamma radiation, and none where measured. So it had to be a pure chemical effect or measurement errors. But nature is full of surprises , and we have not reached the end of science..yet..After this event Cold Fusion was put in same category as Ufology, so only the boldest scientists would touch the subject, on the risk of their career.


    This polemic sounds good but I do not see evidence for it and when considered objectively it seems unlikely for all the obvious reasons expounded better by others (Joshua) than by me.


    Quote

    Anyhow: there are dusins of LENR theories, but lack of funding and interest in the Scientific community holds back the progress of the field. And no theory will initially be able to explain all phenomena, enough with one testable that can predict some outcome as a start.


    I think you have not been paying attention to Popper, as summarised by me above.To be a hypothesis (a candidate theory) we must get testable new predictions - not fitting to old known data which is all too easy to do by adding cherry-picked parameters or assumptions.I know only a few such, and none such that have been successful - e.g. their predictions, when tested, have panned out.


    Therefore I await you putting forward such an LENR hypothesis, with the new predictions it made, and the subsequent tests that gave it credibility as a plausible new theory.If you do not find this, then I think your statement above is incorrect.

  • Forgive me, bur your next post sounds like you have been reading Mats Lewan. Not, given his irrationality over the Lugano results, a good comparison.


    Quote

    "Thus: a bulletproof observation at odds with accepted theory...... is accepted as a phenomena when it is repeatable and clearly well beyond experimental error, even if no theory exists to predict it. "


    Well, again you are wrong. F&P had "bursts of heat" in some one of eight electrolytic cells back in 1989. Bursts with power and energy densities far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But the Scientific community had no patience to wait for papers or more info from F&P. Within 40 days (and 40 nights) it was all over, and F&P was left om Their own.


    What evidence do you have that these "bursts of heat" are bulletproof and have energy and power density far beyond possible artifacts? Give me a well-written scholarly paper (no peer review required, but I will point out if it has lacks) and I will see whether I agree with this. It seems unlikely, simply because such evidence would be of great interest to many. But spare me the sociological explanation of why it was ignored - show me the write-up.


    Quote

    One of eight probability to observe a mystery is far far better than the frequency of Terrestrial gamma ray flashes in lightning, which still is considered bulletproof with no theory, while F&P was not.


    Sorry, you are confusing well-attested stochastic data with a reproducible distribution and many independent observers agreeing on its reality (TGFs) with sporadic data based on lone researchers interpretation of experiments that are in any case not bulletproof.


    Quote

    And F&P did even better later in France, but by then they where forgotten. And no mainstream scientists one would go near this kind of "Ufology"


    And when the deciding institutes concluded "nothing here, move on" in 1989, the remaining Scientific community followed like obedient dogs. No more debate, even when some labs showed excess heat results.Or as Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT said of excess heat if F&P type experiments:"we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are not considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community.


    From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."[/quote]
    If the experiments are real they can be written up and critiqued by others. That is the only way to make progress. I have not seen such credible write-ups. Please post.

  • "But that is the point. "LENR" is not a scientific theory because it makes no predictions and therefore can never be disproved."


    Who has ever stated that cold fusion, LENR, LANR, LENT or whatever you would Like to call it is a THEORY?


    It has never been a THEORY, but an experimental anomaly!


    A Theory is what is needed to explain, predict, to be used to build a test protocol


    "What (negative) evidence would cause you to conclude that LENR did not exist?"


    - Proof that F&P where swindlers, proof of foul play by the Japanese scientists, proof of Foul play by Mckubre, proof of foul play by Mitchell Swartz etc. Etc. ..


    " I remember the headlines and the (cautious in most cases) excitement in the scientific community. "


    Yes, the press conference was in late March 1989. And the deciding moment was 2. And 3rd May 1989 of the APS meeting in Baltimore where the deciding institutes like CALTECH and MIT sealedd the coffin of F&P. Read the newspaper articles of the time. It's proof enough.


    After 3.rd of May cold fusion was just Cold dead.


    "After a long period of attempted reproduction..."


    The main period of "try to replicate" lasted some 40 days. After Baltimore in May 1989 there where positive results internationally, but no one to listen.


    "F&Ps ideas were not accepted because neither he nor anyone else could reproduce them in a clearer experiment."


    Wrong. They got better reproducability in France (IMRA)


    About why IMRA abandoned cold fusion research, despite they clearly established a scientific phenomenon (yet not useable results): The money ran out, it is as simple as that. No threats, no conspiracy, no nothing. Only no money. When their sponsor Minoru Toyoda died the funds dried up.


    IMRA in France was financed by Technova a subsidiary of Toyota corp. Fleischmann and Pons were there to scale up their system’s energy production and to make it reliable, make it a commercial product. They did produce results, but it was not enough to make a real commercial product out of it.


    Without real money, they couldn’t get a step further. They already had produced compelling evidence that the anomalous heat effect was real. Had they had $120million funding back then, the world would have looked different today.


    Minuro Toyoda was clearly very interested in cold fusion, as shown by the ISCMNS memorial Contribution Award, “Minoru Toyoda Gold Medal”. (Medal is made of 18 carat gold )


    Even at the morning of his death, the story goes that he was briefed on the latest info on CF development.


    Anyhow: it's not over. I think the new "F&P Anomalous heat" Institute at Texas tech University will shed some light on what's going on. Or the ongoing research at University of Missouri.

  • You Ask for some scholarly writings?


    This one may be a nice start from professor Hagelstein, which sums up some F&P experiments with clear excess heat.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…sReport-3696_48_PR152.pdf


    This paper I found interesting:


    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…eposition-experiments.pdf


    And this one explains why the institutes in 1989 where not able to replicate F&P, critical conditions where found later in the nineties, but then the mai stream science community showed no interest to go back and investigate,


    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…e-of-scientific-proof.pdf


    And here, a paper on anomalous heat evidence on the Nanor of Dr. Mitchell Swartz
    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Dry-preloaded-NANOR®-type-CFLANR-components.pdf


    Do you want more? May be some from Japan or Italy or others?

  • Quote

    I was only poking fun at people who base their opinions of Mat's book on things they read on Amazon.


    LOL.


    Go read the thread in which I mentioned an Amazon review.


    Unlike, perhaps, some, I am open when small parts of what I say have dubious provenance, and then I make those views explicitly conditional. And that is funny? Remember, I've had many e-mail interchanges with Mats about Lugano - so I know his views.


    ---------


    So I'd really like the F&P writeup so I could consider whether Oystla is correct in his statements about their work.


    What I've got is:


    A Hagelstein summary of F&P. You must forgive me. I don't accept summaries. That is someone else's view of the work. It can't be critiqued. Imagine if I'd accepted one of the many internet summaries of the Lugano results. You don't think mainstream scientists interested in LENR would base their views on such vague evidence? (Not that I'm a scientist, but I've had some training, and like reading stuff).


    Presumably H has based his summary on F&P writeups. I'd like one - the best that shows bulletproof evidence. Quantity does not make up for quality here.


    A Brillouin summary of other people work. That gives me B's view of other work, equally unhelpful. Anyone who bases opinions (positive or negative) about such a contentious issue on other's opinions is not thinking for themselves, and of course you can always select the summariser to have the views you like.


    I'd also point out that H is not a good experimentalist (he's basically a theory guy). Nor are Brillouin, because I've noticed:
    (1) They use high power RF stimulation of their reactions
    (2) They have noted that the reaction response, as measured by TC temperature, to the stimulus is fast
    (3) I've not seen any analysis of them of the possible EMC issues, so common whenever high power RF is mixed with low-level instrumentation. It looks like a very plausible explanation for their results which any good experimenter would take great care to rule out, and cross-check that it is ruled out. (This is something I know about).


    So even if I did accept other people's opinion, I would not choose them on the matter of experimental methodology.


    If you do accept other people's opinion there must then be the question of why you choose these outliers rather than the much more frequent view?



    A set of about 20 really really interesting papers from Schwartz. I'm always up for trying to decrpt the NANOR methodology. The results seem to indicate experimental error (I paraphrase):


    "The high COPs only happen at low output powers"


    I also note a prevalence of very very flakey wire in glass bulb calorimetry in which any surface or gas change that alters thermal resistance to ambient will cause a temperature change and be interpreted as excess heat.


    But, I'm happy to look at these. Which one is most interesting? (20 is too many for me).


    Anyway that is OT. Where is F&P's writeup of their experiment that has never been replicated but proves LENR? (Why, BTW, has it not been replicated?).