Distinguishing non-belief and disbelief... on skepticism...

A collection of junk worth $59 million, Mary.

Despite your best efforts...

Impressive, no?

Well Mary,

"OK oystla. 1998. Where is replication? Where are improvements? Where is a practical application? Or don't you expect that in 18 years+?"

Replication?

What about NASA Ni-H LENR research?
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

Improvements? Practical applications?

Going from lab to claimed commercial systems with a not-yet-understood-mysterious-nuclear-energy-source in only 18 years is almost non believable. But still...

If we concentrate on pure Ni-H systems, we could point to
Godes: http://brillouinenergy.com
Piantelli: http://www.nichenergy.com/index.html

And of courses must not forget
http://ecat.com/about

Perhaps they all live an illusion. We'll see

Quote from Tyy

So, Frank. I understand this is your one piece of conclusive evidence I asked for.

I know this game, because I've seen several times over the last few years. Each study that is brought forth will be summarily shot down by way of the keen insight and perspicacity of the intellectual gladiator raising the challenge.

The link that was given was to a criticism by Ludwik Kowalski to the CR-39 studies. I think the links you want are here: Are We at or Near the Tipping Point?. If there are too many to look at, you can start with http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf. Here is the punchline: if you find something obviously wrong, in the sense that they're not even trained correctly in science, you will be invited to submit a criticism to Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. This will be very easy to do for you to do, since you are well-versed in how science is done, and it will be satisfying and straightforward, since the errors are surely basic ones.

Eric

Thanks for the swift rescue, I found the articles you suggested particularly interesting and thought they would be of interest to others who might be better placed to understand them than me, but I did not expect to be ambushed by a 'reputation trap' with such force.

Very best regards
Frank

TYY

I have no wish to engage you in battle on a separate post but I understand you could be invited to submit a criticism to Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. I would be very interested to read that if you would care to post a link here .......

Thank you for the invitation all the same.

Best regards
Frank

A picture of a power panel (and your associated "engineering analysis") will prove nothing, as you have killed your credibility with that silly comment about locomotives.

Quote from Mary Yugo

A friendly suggestion: stick to fields you understand. If there are any.

Indeed.

I find it interesting that before spending $59m, Woodford and Co. must have had a look at Gary Wright's attack website (apparently your favourite website) and decided it was nonsense.

I also wonder whether during their 2.5 year due diligence they came across some of your posts; breathless, abusive, CAPITALISED, and decided you were another disbeliever not to be taken seriously?

Quote from Tyy

The experiment producing these pits seem to be reproducible. But it is unclear to me why they are supposed to be caused by nuclear processes. If that would be the case, it would be a revolutionary discovery, of course.

These pits are characteristic of energetic alphas and protons -- particles that have MeV's of energy. As you are aware, MeV's of energy imply something very strange indeed; it would be more difficult to suggest something other than nuclear in origin in this instance. Perhaps you can think of something. One can see that the pits are characteristic of energetic alphas with the americium standard that they use on the corner of each chip. The pits look the same, and the density is somewhat different. This may not be conclusive evidence of something nuclear; but arguing that it's not nuclear is perhaps like seeing an airplane flying in the early 1900's and trying to explain it by way of moving towers you can't see that are holding it up, or cables and pulleys.

Mosier-Boss et al. are not doing something hugely strange in using the CR-39 in this way; this is a common tool used in the nuclear field.

Quote from Tyy

From my point of view, my claim that LENR research only produces anecdotal evidence, is backed up you this experiment, which is supposed to be "good" evidence. But no piece of evidence like this can stand on its own, so that's why the supporters of cold fusion need "a mass of evidence".

If you are not qualified to submit a rebuttal to the article, what's your basis for saying that this is not good evidence? Note also that they find spots on x-ray film, they use infrared imagery to provide evidence of little micro-explosions over time, and they carry out several other methods to cross-check their results.

This particular set of studies seems pretty good to me. Does it bolster one's credibility or objectivity to disqualify credible evidence?

Quote from Tyy

I do not want to play "games". I would be sincerely interested in true evidence hinting that LENR is real. Still unable to find even one that is more than marginally interesting.

Ok, it's not interesting to you. Are we to conclude from this fact something about the studies by Mosier-Boss et al. or something about you as an objective referee?

Quote from H-G Branzell

The white pixels are not micro explosions more than the other pixels.

Yes -- thank you for clarifying. I misspoke. Perhaps they're micro-explosions.

Maybe they did nothing for 2.49 years, then just tossed a coin, I mean, it's only $59m.

And I hope your letter to the CEO didn't contain too much capitalisation, or you calling him a "moron" or some such.

Quote from H-G Branzell

You are saying the same thing?! None of the pixels correspond to micro explosions, they only represent different temperatures displayed by false colors.

The infrared image shows that there are temperature transients with t >= 49 C (out of range, as mentioned above). I said that "Perhaps they're micro-explosions." I used the word "perhaps," which expresses a tentative or contingent situation. To disprove a proposition expressed tentatively, you will assume the burden of proving that proposition is absolutely false. Can you prove that they're not micro-explosions? Figure 5 in this paper by the same group shows what the temperature transients look like. The curve is cut off at 49 C, due no doubt to the limitations of the camera. Or do you propose that the temperature only went up to 49 C?

On p. 288 of this article by the same group, you can see the formation of blisters on the surface of a polarized palladium electrode. What causes that? A gradual, low-energy phenomenon?

On pp. 4-7 of this issue of JCMNS, in an article by David Nagel, there are some SEM images of what look like craters from explosions. Are these surface phenomena unrelated to the ones seen by Mosier-Boss et al.? Are they created by a gradual, low-energy process? Are they experimental artifact?

I.e., perhaps those temperature transients correspond to micro-explosions. Seems like a reasonable and measured statement.