LENR growing acceptance: JCMNS (Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) will be indexed in the Web Of Science

  • On his blog, Jean-Paul Biberian, the editor of the only LENR scientific journal, the JCMNS (Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) reports that JCMNS will be indexed in the Web Of Science produced by ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) of thomson Scientific


    http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian…ns-la-reconnaissance.html


    This is a tiny but important move, toward acceptance of LENR science. This will allow more researcher to have access to articles. (without being burned alive ;) )



    Un premier pas dans la reconnaissance de la Fusion Froide par la science officielle


    Le seul journal entièrement dédié à la Fusion Froide, le "Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear
    Science" va maintenant être indexé dans le "Web of Science", un service d’information universitaire en ligne produit par la société ISI – Institute for Scientific Information de Thomson Scientific. Ce site visité par de nombreux scientifiques permettra à plus de chercheurs d'accéder aux nombreux articles publiés sur le sujet.

  • Since barty abruptly cut the Mule thread courtesy TheGomp I will post my reply to him here instead.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dear TheGomp (Get Off My Party?), you seem to be a bit grumpy today.
     
    A physical fact is a valid statement about observable objects, e. g. "protons repel each other".


    This statement is valid because every time you bring protons together they repel each other.


    A physical theory is a mathematical construct that can be used to predict the outcome of experiments like putting two protons close to each other.


    Coulomb's law is a physical theory that describes the electrical interactions between protons.


    Any physical theory is a servant to the facts, it can never override them.


    It is a physical fact that two atomic nucleuses can merge and release energy. We call this process "fusion".


    To fuse two nucleuses they must approach each other with a speed that is high enough to overcome the electrostatic repulsion between them. This speed corresponds to extremely high temperatures like those that you can find in the interior of stars.


    The working hypothesis of the LENR proponents is that fusion also can occur at temperatures in the range where we normally observe only chemical reactions. Since such a reaction cannot be predicted from standard physics the LENR work takes place along a meandering path of trial and error experiments.


    Tell tale indications of nuclear reactions are the fragments that with high energies leave the scene of action. The LENR researchers have had very limited success in detecting such fragments and thus they have turned to another criterion for occurrence of LENR and that is detection of the heat that the reactions would deposit in the test equipment. The absence of radiation has been optimistically interpreted as a good sign making this possible new energy source safe, compact and cheap.


    The step from detecting reaction products to instead measuring the heat they produce is a very big step backwards in terms of sensitivity. Just a few nuclear events can be detected but it takes a huge number of them to get a measurable quantity of heat.


    Not only that, heat is everywhere and there are simple reasons for this. Since heat is microscopic movements of molecules it spreads by diffusion in all directions. And when the heat hits a wall of nothing it cunningly morphs into infrared radiation and with the speed of light takes the jump over to something. The summary of this is: calorimetry is difficult!


    Yet another complication is that you cannot just put some stuff in a test tube, lean back and wait for LENR to happen. Invariably LENR researchers instead supply energy to the test setup, which is normally done in the form of electricity. This means that your energy balance has to include this supply and already here the error margins may swamp any small LENR effect.


    At this time in history, after scores of years and thousands of experiments, it is safe to say that the LENR community has not been able to design an apparatus that reproducibly satisfies the criteria for LENR to be real.


    So, being a LENR skeptic I feel that my feet rest on solid ground with no earthquakes in sight.

  • it seems you ave a problem with logic.


    A crackpot journal getting indexed with mainstream only journal, let people conclude it is not a crackpot journal.


    For sure it is more complex, and the endorsement is only great in comparison to the insult already spread, that make you look a polite Guy.
    Like the few unclear article in Fortune, Time Magazine, FT, I suspect that some informed coward prepare next generation CYA (cover your ass) stage on LENR, while staying in current CYA paradigm avoiding the reputation trap.


    People should never forget that since Wilson there have been no reviewed opposing paper to F&P.
    Shanahan avoided ridicule by being rejected by mainstream journals, and only mcKubre al dared to crucify his papers.


    even Ferrara critic is pathetic, like the inverted clamp theories.
    and finally only the emissivity probable mistake by Lugano testers save the skeptic community for total failure.

  • H-G - a good summary.


    People here will claim that tunnelling and shielding modify things. They do of course, but in a way that has been very well investigated both experimentally and theoretically, with good agreement and no LENR.


    I think the way most get round this is to read stuff about QM in lattices and - not understanding the details - reckon this can generate magic. Once you look at the wave functions, how coherence is broken, and what quantum weirdness can and can'r happen - the idea that particles with 100s of keV of energy can exist in lattices looks very implausible.


    But experiment always trumps theory. Unfortunately the experimental evidence is for no LENR.

  • Quote

    People should never forget that since Wilson there have been no reviewed opposing paper to F&P.Shanahan avoided ridicule by being rejected by mainstream journals, and only mcKubre al dared to crucify his papers.even Ferrara critic is pathetic, like the inverted clamp theories.


    I have been calling for papers posted here that show LENR and we've not yet found any. Why do you expect refutation when the evidence presented in LENR papers is incoherent? It is not a research contribution to say "hey - this paper makes no real contribution, its evidence is weak and any number of artifacts have not been ruled out". Scientists are not in the business of censoring claimed anomalies. Sometimes there is some coherent effect that can be reified and everyone then gates excited. This coherence is what LENR data lacks, as Hagelstein admits.


    LENR people read probabilities into papers showing anomalies that no-one expert and unbiassed would.

  • Thomas Clarke: I don't want to be a bad boy, but what you are writing on the forum looks like some disease.
    You are saying same story each day, in multiple threads. Still in one circle, again and again.
    This is not normal anymore.


    Even if you are right in everything, what you are doing is not mark of being OK.

  • Until now, there is no artifact that explain the finding of F&P, nor of most serious LENr experiments.
    It is only disproven arguments, of Lewis and Hansen, which at least were published so they could be proposed to competent electrochemist who like Wilson said it was wrong.
    Others claims like Morrison and Shanahan are full of basic errors .


    Rest is conspiracy, innuendo, insults, racism, ignorance, self-reference (like when Baron of Munchausen pull on his own boots to fly).

  • If Thomas is repeating himself, it's because believers don't seem to get it. I get the same accusation all the time. Yes, I keep rubbing people's noses in Rossi's lies and contradictions. Believers seem to keep repeating all the Rossifiction and Rossi web site garbage that they read and believe. And they think nothing of repetition when they are doing it.l When the Rossi stuff repetition is in a fresh location, and a fresh [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon], the counterpoints require repeating.

  • I propose two new terms to help us to think more clearly in pertinent discussions:

    • "believers against Rossi" -- people who believe that Rossi is a scammer and/or up to no good
    • "believers against LENR" -- people who believe that LENR is a pseudoscience
  • [quote='me356','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2377-LENR-growing-acceptance-JCMNS-Journal-of-Condensed-Matter-Nuclear-Science-will-b/?postID=12400#post12400']Thomas Clarke: I don't want to be a bad boy, but what you are writing on the forum looks like some disease.
    You are saying same story each day, in multiple threads. Still in one circle, again and again.



    I think Thomas has a dart board by his computer sectioned as: "bad experimental set-up, within margin of error, probably an artefact as every experiment can produce those". When he is presented another report to "read", he throws the dart. ;)

  • Eric. most skeptics "believe" nothing. Belief is irrelevant to science. It's about religion. What matters is evidence. And every shred of available evidence points to Rossi's crap as an obvious, blatant, very transparent SCAM. But I guess we'll see where Rossi's marketing plan is a year from now, two years from now and if Darden and Woodford are dumb enough, maybe even three years from now. Rossi is the gift that keeps on giving.


    OK Eric, please tell me what we know Rossi actually accomplished so far OTHER than what he and his associates say they did. What really INDEPENDENT evidence is there that Rossi has anything other than a collection of weird electrical heaters including a pretty ordinary tube furnace?

  • Some people are obviously in deep trouble because they do not believe in Rossi's invention. Only one thing would be to perceive that if this is a fraud then nothing happens. The criticism of a technical nature can be very useful, otherwise several patents have already been adopted.

  • Mary, I do not have a strong opinion about Rossi. You could call me agnostic when it comes to him. I definitely look forward to hearing about the next set of testing, though. I can also look forward to getting an alternative view from the believers against Rossi, some of whom are most zealous and ardent in their belief against him.

  • >So, being a LENR skeptic I feel that my feet rest on solid ground with no earthquakes in sight.


    Sure it does rest on solid ground, so what? What brake-through your skepticism may offer? Nobody rejects the existence of Coulomb barrier everyone working to get energy from fusion are looking to overcome this barrier it is correct for hot fusion as well as for cold one; just the mainstream hot fusion uses a brute force mechanism; LENR tries to get around with different kinds of loopholes in quantum mechanics. Btw, your line of arguments look childish, like a person with "special abilities" works painfully hard to appear logical...

  • But experiment always trumps theory. Unfortunately the experimental evidence is for no LENR.


    Well, there are overwhelming experimental evidences of isotopic shifts for energies a way below MeV. You probably one of proponent of mind over matter ideas; if you are persistent enough calling rabbit a pigeon eventually it will become a pigeon ;o)

  • Eric. most skeptics "believe" nothing. Belief is irrelevant to science. It's about religion. What matters is evidence. And every shred of available evidence points to Rossi's crap as an obvious, blatant, very transparent SCAM.


    Apparently no one may avoid belief at some level; just take for example your statement "every shred of available evidence points to Rossi's crap as an obvious" is an example of yours; while I see plenty experimental evidences that isotopic shift is possible for quite low energies and I see no reasons why some Edison/Kulibin/Rossi could not stumble upon some manifestation of this...

  • Quote

    I can also look forward to getting an alternative view from the believers against Rossi, some of whom are most zealous and ardent in their belief against him.


    Eric Walker


    There are two overwhelming reasons, actually three, to distrust Rossi and they are very well documented. In about a week, I expect to receive yet another FOIA report on the thermoelectric scam, the one from Parsons, hopefully, to put one more nail into that coffin.


    1) Well documented, extensive criminal history in Italy -- not only Petroldragon but various kinds of illegal gold trade, money laundering, tax dodging and others. Attempted to foist off a purchased degree from a bogus university as real.


    2) No measurable or provable accomplishment EVER. And all claims of accomplishments in his past come only from Rossi.


    3) No proper measurement, no independent measurement of his current claims EVER.


    And of course, many other things including contradictions and absurd claims in the ridiculously titled blog, JONP. Trust anything Rossi says or invest in Rossi at your own risk.