Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)

Quote from Thomas Clarke

@axil,

A picture is no doubt worth a thousand words, but in this case you would need a lot of words (like a whole paper's worth) to make that picture convincing. CR-39 is a really bad way to prove phenomena are real exactly because it is so sensitive and many different artifacts and contaminations are known. Proving any specific apparent evidence is not one such, or perhaps some real but unrecognised artifact, is going to be a tall order.

Also, if LENR experiments generate high energy particles it is likely that quite often they will generate lots of these, and the signature will be easier to disambiguate from noise.

The noise was shown by predeveloping the CR-39 which marks the noise as a large bubble.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAnuclearrea.pdf

Nuclear reactions produced in an operating electrolysis cell

Tom,

I don't mind the "problem solving mode". I do not take issue with the wide divergence in our positions. I will try my best to address specific points.

I should also like to make a general point, which might or might not seem good to you. I suggest that it's good to avoid over-conceptualizing things. For me that seems to get in the way of a good bayesian assessment. I've found that a better approach is to always look at simple claims of fact, and see where things go from there -- the raw data.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

What I've found so far is experiments with possible artifacts, and when these are tightened up the effect vanishes.

Which non-Rossi experiments have you seen that were promising but, after being tightened, ended up being artifact? We both agree that Lugano was critically flawed. I think almost everyone agrees. (Nonetheless I still find it interesting.)

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The question is this - how can we know whether the examples of apparent clear LENR evidence represent novel physics, rather than artifact? That I addressed, and you seem not to like my solution.

I'm trying to understand why you don't.

If you see a novel claim once (charged particles picked up in CR-39 experiments, excess heat from calorimetry, helium detected), and then it disappears upon further investigation, yes, perhaps it was experimental error of some kind (or maybe it wasn't). If you see report after report, by people who appear to be quite skilled at what they do and who have taken a number of precautions (sometimes going overboard, in my opinion), it starts to feel intellectually dishonest to simply call it liable experimental error. Eventually the patterns move into a new category for me which I'd call "anomaly". What's going on? Perhaps it's systematic error. But there's plenty of reason to think it might not be error. (This kind of feeling can only happen by looking at lots of reports.)

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Whether the phenomena is stochastic (due to unknown variables) or not, repeating the best experiments with tighter methodology will lead to stronger signals. With strong enough signals you can show me a single bulletproof writeup.

These things would not be stochastic; the error would have to be systematic. Perhaps it's all correlated systematic error. There have been plenty of experiments that have been repeated, and the putative finding does not go away.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Even without that, a trend towards tighter methodology with more accurate calorimetry showing more distinctive signal would be expected.

The calorimetry is often extremely accurate, with errors that are drowned out by the signal. Again the error would have to be systematic.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I don't mean to be argumentative here, but I'm in problem solving mode. We have a question that needs to be answered and are considering what procedures could best answer it.

I don't think you'll get any further through debate, but I could be wrong. Exposure to actual raw data is needed. How you go about that is your special challenge to sort out, given your preference for quality over quantity. I cannot do your homework for you.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I think you are saying that for you it is not a question, because you are convinced.

I'm not completely convinced; I'm 80 percent convinced. Someone would have to pull a rabbit out of a hat showing systematic error across helium, calorimetry, x-ray measurements, charged particle experiments and isotopic shifts. Whatever they were able to show to be underlying that systematic error would itself be a pretty amazing thing.

Eric

Re. Thomas "CR-39 is a really bad way to prove phenomena are real exactly because it is so sensitive and many different artifacts and contaminations are known"

It's a good comment, when That's the best you have and don't know how to attack the evidence. CR39 have been used by mainstream science and detector Industry since the 1970's. How to read energetic particle tracks, what will affect the results and not, how to Compare with background, what are the error bounds, etc. Etc. is well known

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Also, if LENR experiments generate high energy particles it is likely that quite often they will generate lots of these, and the signature will be easier to disambiguate from noise.

Indeed; this is where I suspect the x-rays that are often seen come from (which have also frequently been measured). Note that x-rays below a certain range are readily attenuated by water, quartz and stainless steel, and special steps must be taken to measure them.

Gamma photons are a different thing. It is a little baffling that there are few to no gammas. I have an idea for why this might be so, but it's just speculation.

I'm now reading a per reviewed paper from a mainstream science journal which documents 100 watt el. input and 70 watt EXCESS heat power for 300 + days. (Pure University related stuff - no commercial companies)

900 000 KJ in excess energy total when test stopped.

Fascinating stuff

Quote from Eric Walker

Indeed; this is where I suspect the x-rays that are often seen come from (which have also frequently been measured). Note that x-rays below a certain range are readily attenuated by water, quartz and stainless steel, and special steps must be taken to measure them.

Gamma photons are a different thing. It is a little baffling that there are few to no gammas. I have an idea for why this might be so, but it's just speculation.

There was a suggestion from someone awhile back to place a gamma and/or and alpha source inside a reactor as a probe that can determine when the reaction begins. The radiation suppression is based on the development of a Bose Condensate on the nano particles that support the reaction. IMHO, when sufficient SPPs are formed and they join in a condensate. That SPP condensate will thermalize high energy radiation and shield gamma emissions.

The output of the radiation source will act as an indicator of how far along that the LENR reaction has developed. The smaller that the radiation detection shrinks, the greater is the development of the LENR reaction.

This approach would also make for a great paper. A candidate for a probe source might be a salt of uranium.

It seems to me there are those who acknowledge there is a 'phenomena' here as I do. There are those who seek to explain it and others who seek to dismiss it as pathalogical science. I have to ask, is this the same motivation that lead to the demise of Pons and Flieshmann. If so what service does this style of critique offer to the progress of science. Compare this with science in general as a progression of knowledge which has transfered acknowledged phenomena into useful tools. Only to find later this science was overturned or modified by new understanding. This agressive polarization is particularly acute perhaps beacuse it threatens many vested interested parites. An analogy would be the climate change debate. Huw Price's question "Is cold fusion truly impossible, or is it just that no respectable scientist can risk their reputation working on it?” On balance, there is a 'phenomena' here and reputable scientists have a particularly challenging jouney ahead as of course did the Wright brothers. In the first few years after their landmark flight in 1903 they landed an army deal which saw Signal Corps Airplane No. 1--and thus the world's first military airplane. Any such advantage today would be maintained for as long as possible under a cloak of national interest. May I pay tribute to those of you who are pusshing the boundaries of this particular envelope in the public domain.

Right: Over Five years ago Dr. Focardi, because of his impeccable credentials and reputation drew me to watch what Rossi was doing. Nothing that Rossi has done or said since and, I have been listening almost every day, has indicated to me he is a fraud. Just the opposite, his intelligence and grasp of science in general tells me he truly believes in LENR.

Right, Oystla: Over Five years ago Dr. Focardi, because of his impeccable credentials and reputation drew me to watch what Rossi was doing. Nothing that Rossi has done or said since and, I have been listening almost every day, has indicated to me he is a fraud. Just the opposite, his intelligence and grasp of science in general tells me he truly believes in LENR.

Quote

I'm now reading a per reviewed paper from a mainstream science journal which documents 100 watt el. input and 70 watt EXCESS heat power for 300 + days. (Pure University related stuff - no commercial companies)

Very good. sounds like its the bulletproof paper I've been asking for. Post the link and we can all consider it!

PS - how was the heat output measured?

PPS was it by any chance a heat pump?

Quote

It seems to me there are those who acknowledge there is a 'phenomena' here as I do. There are those who seek to explain it and others who seek to dismiss it as pathalogical science. I have to ask, is this the same motivation that lead to the demise of Pons and Flieshmann. If so what service does this style of critique offer to the progress of science. Compare this with science in general as a progression of knowledge which has transfered acknowledged phenomena into useful tools.

Phenomena do not always imply new physics. In fact they very very rarely do this. I don't think anyone doubts a collection of phenomena, their interpretation (artifact or new physics) is the issue.

Nor do I think the "artifact" interpretation is pathological science. In fact the question of pathological science is complex, and relates to motives, sociology, etc. I'd rather just stick with whether these phenomena are artifacts or not.

Artifacts are common. Experiments do weird things, and getting to the bottom of what that wiggle line means, when theory say it should be straight, takes a long time and sustained effort.

Look at MFMP's attempts to duplicate Celani wire excess heat for an object lesson.

If you reject the interpretation experts put on these experiments you have two options:
(1) You can choose a small band of personally involved less qualified experts, over the much larger number who reckon this is artifact.
(2) You can try and work it out yourself.

I'm personally all for (2) because I'm independent and also pretty confident of my ability to evaluate most stuff, and know when I can't evaluate bits. But it takes time and effort, and "acknowledgement" does not do that process justice.

Thomas,

Heat pump? Haha. Sure, there you have it,..... or I got it, hehe : LENR is a Nuclear Quantum Fluctuations heat pump, hehe

It's really clear to me now: LENR connects the linear response from the ZPE field relaxation from a prepared non-equilibrium state to its statistical fluctuation properties in a linear response to one or more exponential decays of Fluctuation-dissipation of the Quantum field, meaning thermal fluctuations will be redirected when acted upon by electrical fields in response quantified by the admittance or impedance of the same physical variable... And vise versa.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Well I'm happy not to comment with any certainty on the human aspects. The difference between us is that I see self-delusion as possibly a good deal more far reaching than you - but it does not really matter.

"but it does not really matter" Character assassination matters. Rossi was convicted of tax evasion and that conviction was overturned. Before you judge Rossi please read this article on the Italian legal/court system.
http://inpublicsafety.com/2015…e-italian-justice-system/

@BKK - who said I was doing character assassination?

I criticise the Swedish profs for not replying to my proper critique of their work. They published, but then do not refute my correction or retract their results. It is not proper behaviour.

Rossi is clearly incompetent, also clearly dishonest. That is based on his public statements about e-cats, many of which are self-contradictory and untrue, his continuing to hold up the Lugano results as proof his stuff works, and his giving the Lugano testers a device that surely (from its color if nothing else) he must have known was not working.

I'm not saying more than that.

I suppose to be fair he might be a bit more dishonest and not incompetent, with the apparent incompetence a ruse.

Happy Christmas everyone!

Happy Christmas to all

Thomas: could be Mr. Rossi is deliberately confusing everyone just to be ahead of the game, and protect his Comapny and invention ..

He is first and foremost an entrepeneur and inventor, not a scientist that feel any obligation of thruth and honesty.

You know, nothing personal, only business

yup. Crooked business.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Happy Christmas everyone!

And to you to. Thanks for debating with me.

Thomas Clarke, you said "Rossi is clearly incompetent, also clearly dishonest. That is based on his public statements about e-cats, many of which are self-contradictory and untrue, his continuing to hold up the Lugano results as proof his stuff works, and his giving the Lugano testers a device that surely (from its color if nothing else) he must have known was not working." Anyone who says this about a person, should follow it up with facts. I have been following Rossi's site on a daily basis, if you take all of his statements in context, none of them are "untrue". It is my opinion to call someone "dishonest", his statements "untrue" must be backed up with proof. If you do not, I call it character assassination.