And The extremely well written and objective history lesson in Cold Fusion by Charles G. Beaudette (2002) - "Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed" may be downloaded here:
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
"An investigative report prepared for the general reader to explain how the most extraordinary claim made in the basic sciences during the twentieth century was mistakenly dismissed through errors of scientific protocol."
QuoteAndrea Rossi is a completely separate matter. His claims are to be firewalled off from those of LENR researchers, who are not associated with him. That is not to say that he's wrong. Simply that he's not part of the scientific effort looking at LENR. He is an independent engineer and, surely, a businessman.
Businessman? Engineer?... Rossi is actually ... ah, nevermind?
Mary
That was almost polite Mary, my faith in human nature has I think reached a 'tipping point'.
Frank
Eric,
The books you mention are absolutely not a good way to judge whether teh experiments show "real" LENR. They are highly polemic summaries. You get from them what the author wants.
I disagree that there is so much to read. If LENR is real then there must be a killer experiment - or - if not clear how to judge them - a killer sequence of experiments. that is at most reading 5 connected papers.
Remember, a whole set of interconnected weak elements of evidence does not work here. We make these connections very easily, and there is no predictive theory that could be supported by different evidence, because LENR has never yet got to that state. Therefore we need strong evidence.
I'll look through the CR-39 sequence assuming it is a coherent thread - but I wonder why Jed's "most convincing evidence" is different from yours?
The books you mention are absolutely not a good way to judge whether teh experiments show "real" LENR. They are highly polemic summaries. You get from them what the author wants.
My point is simpler than that. People should take the time to become acquainted with the history, so that one knows what the claims are. If the histories have been polemical, as I believe they have to a certain extent, then one should factor that into one's understanding.
I have read several polemical pieces against LENR, and some skeptical but less polemical pieces that might be said to be on the fence. These include:
I don't think it hurt me to read those accounts even though the first two were quite polemical. I somewhat liked Hoffman's book, which is more balanced. My view is that one should not be afraid to read whatever will help him or her to get to a position of knowledge.
Your investigation of whether any of this is true is your own to manage. I cannot tell you what to do. If you think you can pull it off by not reading any papers or books, this is certainly an approach that one might attempt. It does not sound like a very compelling one to me.
Eric - i don't doubt that books against LENR are equally polemical. It is in the nature of somone writing such a book about this subject: they will take a position, and it will color the way they present the evidence.
My point is that if you don't accept the "settled view" of scientists - then the only other way to become informed is to read, for oneself, and judge, for oneself - the source write-ups of the experiments. Reviews, summaries, etc all substitute the judgement of the author for your own.
I admire an indepedent stance which says you are not prepared to accept otehr people's views. That however is compromised if you then make judgements based on predigested summaries.
in particular I've read the LENR history from different viewpoints, and it reads as different histories. For myself, I'm not concerned about the history. if LENR is real then experiments over the last 10 years should be able to show it beyond reasonable doubt. that has not been the case for any of the experiments I've read so far.
I'll look through the CR-39 sequence assuming it is a coherent thread - but I wonder why Jed's "most convincing evidence" is different from yours?
When did those papers become my most convincing evidence? I was trying to find something to meet the criteria of your (somewhat arbitrary) category (1) concerning of the longitudinal progression of a set of studies, mentioned above. I am not aware of what Jed's most convincing evidence is. Whatever he has mentioned is probably worth taking a look at, though.
As I have said, I am not aware of any killer studies. Carl Sagan's (and before him, Marcello Truzzi's) teaching of requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims pushes us out of the normal work of science into a rarefied cleanroom hyper science. I don't agree that extraordinary proof is required; I believe that a preponderance of evidence going back to normal studies, showing normal evidence using normal methods, will get you a long way.
I admire an indepedent stance which says you are not prepared to accept otehr people's views. That however is compromised if you then make judgements based on predigested summaries.
I found the history fascinating, myself, and was also very interested in any counterarguments that had been made. But apart from that, the predigested summaries help one to know what the various claims are. This information is good to be aware of. It helps one to avoid things like assuming that there have been no claims of high-COP calorimetry results (there have been such claims). Perhaps this information can be obtained as well or more effectively through other means. I hope no one would put much reliance upon the existing secondary research.
Randy,
On top of what Eric said, may I suggest you get on LENR-CANR, and spend some time there. No particular focus...just read. When/if you do, may I suggest you keep both believer/skeptic arguments in mind.
Curious what you conclude?
Shane,
Thanks for the tip. Wilco.
QuoteI don't agree that extraordinary proof is required; I believe that a preponderance of evidence going back to normal studies, showing normal evidence using normal methods, will get you a long way.
This is where we disagree, on two counts:
(1) Extraordinary evidence in this case should be easy to find. For example a Rossi device as billed tested by genuinely independent and credible people.
(2) Normal evidence is not enough, because the claimed effects are all plausible candidates for errors, bad methodology, bad interpretation, etc. Were the matter at hand not so controversial you would give scientists the benefit of the doubt while still realising that their evidence is weak and could easily be overturned. Here normal evidence is expected when LENR is false because of the immense desire for such evidence (which creates bias in many people) and the fact that even without bias a few people will have undiscovered errors that appear to be evidence which because of its extraordinary import will be trumpeted all over the internet.
(2) Normal evidence is not enough, because [Thomas Clarke's opinion is that] the claimed effects are all plausible candidates for errors, bad methodology, bad interpretation, etc. Were the matter at hand not so controversial you would give scientists the benefit of the doubt while still realising [Thomas Clarke's opinion is that] that their evidence is weak and could easily be overturned.
I modified that to make it a little clearer what is being said. In order to evaluate your proposition and get a sense of whether it is true, one must come to an evaluation of the writer's grasp of the matter being discussed. (Perhaps you will want us to understand that it is not simply your opinion, but instead that of all reasonable scientists, or something like that.)
In my view, the CR-39 studies you've disparaged are good ones, and you have been cavalier in summarily dismissing them. My sense is that the evidence is not weak and that those studies might not be easy to overturn. Allow me to clarify for those who have any question about what they potentially show: they potentially show that in some cases you have a significant population of ~ MeV particles being produced in an electrolytic cell when electricity is running, and significantly fewer in the control runs. Energies in the MeV most plausibly imply a nuclear reaction or decay of some kind. It will take expertise and additional trials to overturn those experiments, no doubt involving members of the original team, if only in a supporting capacity. Here my opinion is that the CR-39 experiments are likely to be solid, and your opinion is that they are weak.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, of course. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion.
Quote(2) Normal evidence is not enough, because [Thomas Clarke's opinion is that]
Thomas Clarke has already substantiated this in the cases brought forward here:
Calorimetry with poor controls
CR-39 with low counts and/or poor controls
He/excess energy correlation with levels that do not match excess energy and are comparable with He expected from background contamination
Quotethe claimed effects are all plausible candidates for errors, bad methodology, bad interpretation, etc. Were the matter at hand not so controversial you would give scientists the benefit of the doubt while still realising [Thomas Clarke's opinion is that]
Well it is opinion, but you'd have to be daft not to agree. Suppose scientists are trying to work out a cosmic thingy parameter, which is known to exist but difficult to measure. An initial attempt at measurement will be accepted as "best guess" even if it is problematic and may be very wrong, simply because there is no better evidence and no reason to think to the contrary. This is a typical "normal" example.
Whereas in the case of something extraordinary like LENR a 'best guess" (weak) indication does not cut it. There may be some here who don't accept that in which case I can do no more than say we differ - all rational scientists will reckon the standard in this case must be much higher, though exactly how high can obviously have some variation.
Thomas Clarke has already substantiated this in the cases brought forward here:
Calorimetry with poor controls
CR-39 with low counts and/or poor controls
He/excess energy correlation with levels that do not match excess energy and are comparable with He expected from background contamination
In my view you haven't shown these things. I think what you've shown is that you're willing to draw such conclusions on the basis of a superficial analysis. Who's correct?
Well it is opinion, but you'd have to be daft not to agree. Suppose scientists are trying to work out a cosmic thingy parameter, which is known to exist but difficult to measure. An initial attempt at measurement will be accepted as "best guess" even if it is problematic and may be very wrong, simply because there is no better evidence and no reason to think to the contrary. This is a typical "normal" example.
Whereas in the case of something extraordinary like LENR a 'best guess" (weak) indication does not cut it. There may be some here who don't accept that in which case I can do no more than say we differ - all rational scientists will reckon the standard in this case must be much higher, though exactly how high can obviously have some variation.
It is clear that theoretical expectations and years of inculcation have taught physicists to be very wary of the notion that something in the MeV might be triggered in an electrochemical cell. In this sense we do not disagree that the claim is extraordinary.
Where we disagree on the above point is in how to put the extraordinary claim on an experimental basis. I think a lot of solid experiments will do the trick. Perhaps more solid experiments will be needed; I don't have a problem with this suggestion. You appear to think that what is needed will be a few extraordinary experiments. Perhaps that is true. Nonetheless it is unscientific to relegate the status of a possibility needing confirmation to the bin of pseudoscience until we have our incredibly awesome experiment.
I find it hard to watch the detailed explanation and level of crosschecking of these CR39 experiments, particularly those done by Dr.s Boss and Forsley, and not come away convinced that these are highly competent scientists and that they are recording nuclear events from the LENR.
Where is the peer-reviewed paper from the skeptic that criticize the best and most recognized LENr exeriments from McKubre, Miles, DeNinno, F&P (post 89), Storms, BARC/Srinivasan, Spawar, all together ?
The only paper that emerged are :
- claim of Lewis that F&P had make a student error by not stiring the cell... refuted because size is not the same, bubbling is intense, mixing is visible wit colorant and temperature is confirmed homogeneous at 0.01C
- claim by Hansen that it is recombination. refuted because F&P measured recombination, and that recombination is negligible at high current density
- claim by Morrison that ... not clear ... not even possible to criticize. he seems to make basic errors.
- claim by Wilson that Lewis and hansen are of course wrong, but that a tiny correction explain the tiny results. In fact confirm the big observed bursts
- claim by novelist gary taubes who spread a conspiracy theory about an intered who frauded. result are incoherent with that claim (Ed Storms tested ), and the same claim was replicated in many labs including LANL and BARC...
- about Ferrara E-cat test, conspiracy theory by Stephen pons, assuming a coaxial cable, refutred by testers who checked the plug and socket.
- about Lugano test, conspiracy theory of inverted plug, on two wattmeters, incompatible with following artifact
- about lugano, test by MFMP that confirm emmissivity in IR band is probably 0.95 not the averaged emissivity of 0.7-0.4, down grading COP much below 2, runing test result.
so yes Lugano is flawed. not Ferara.
Nothing for McKubre experiments that Lewis and Garwin visited (one of the only non-armchair work of critics). they visited , found nothing to criticize, then said nothing else they continue to non-beleive in results.
Claims by skeptic are simply conspiracy theory, frauds, errors, or confirmed by said "believers".
Skeptic claim the hundreds of Excess heat evidence in LENR-style experiments are errors or fraud, but except for Lugano, they never found anything beyond a conspiracy theory based on no evidence.
Skeptic rules apply to skeptic too.
Pplease provide evidence, not suspicion or theory.
I would like to draw attention to one very fascinating detail in the series of experiments by Mosier-Boss et al. There is a hydrogen isotope effect. When D2O is used, there are four orders of magnitude more pits than when H2O is used.
By itself the isotope effect merits consideration, even if it were small but statistically significant. There are no differences in the chemical behavior of D2O and H2O. There are oddities like the fact that pure D2O ice will sink while H2O ice will float, due to differences in mass. But unless there is some chemical impurity in the pure D2O that was used, or they changed their protocol, my understanding is that there should be no difference in what was actually seen in this experiment. They ruled out chemical attack when they replaced palladium chloride with copper chloride and saw no pits. So you have a wildly different behavior observed when one isotope of hydrogen was substituted for another.
Beyond the weirdness of the isotope effect itself, another detail worth noting is that the difference in number of pits was four orders of magnitude. Unless we suggest that the statistical error on the D2O runs was very large, this result is hard to explain. It also suggests that the H2O runs themselves could be considered blank runs of sorts. (They do various kinds of control and do not suggest that the H2O runs were a control.)
Were they careless in something they did? There's the online data that they include with their articles. Ludwik Kowalski thought they got some things wrong when he went looking through that data. After his criticism, they went back, investigated his questions, and replied. Anyone else with lots of opinions can do the same.
Is all of this due to dd fusion? My own guess, it is not. But their supposition that it might does not make the experiment less interesting.
Well that is going to be difficult to judge without a lot of science, is it not?
Which is why as i said previously a detailed examination of a sequence of papers showing progressively tighter measurement of the same quantity from the same experiment would be of help. This is a natural thing for any scientist to do, if it is not done but initial evidence is supplemented in followups by completely different kinds of evidence, or experiments under different conditions measured a different (incomparable) way, it therefore most likely indicates this is impossible.
Or, if there is such a sequence this indicates a single very robust result - I'm not sure this exists because if it did surely we would have heard of it?
Or, if there is such a sequence this indicates a single very robust result - I'm not sure this exists because if it did surely we would have heard of it?
Prima facie, a four-order magnitude difference in pits from D2O runs versus ones from H2O runs sounds robust; do you agree? I would make no assumption about necessarily having heard about results if they were robust. Science and science reporting are weird in some ways. They did end up being featured in some news outlets a few years ago (see the video linked to above).
There's a sequence over a long period of time (twenty years). The tail-end of that sequence comprises the two experiments and one rebuttal I linked to (in addition to the Naturwissenschaften abstract). The group iterate and do further checks along the way. It's interesting. The data are there online for examination for the most recent articles. One could look into it, put together a criticism of what they're doing wrong, and submit it for publication in the same refereed journal. If their mistakes are basic, reasonable scientists will agree, the criticisms will make it through peer review, and the group will either have to show why the criticisms are invalid or they'll face pressure to retract.
(NB: I think I heard at one point that there was a change in management at SPAWAR and this group were instructed to not pursue this line of inquiry any longer, but I might have some details wrong here.)
