Krivit doesn't say that the 1990 paper is the most important
And that is because you do not understand the word Seminal.
-
-
Again you conclude before you investigate
Charles Beaudette never "invested in CF", he had a general interest in the progressions of science through history and invested time of writing this particular book of describing the events that took place.Fortunately, you're not my secretary!
From http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/excessheat/Preface.shtml [bold added]
Excerpt from Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition)
By Charles G. Beaudette
Preface
[…]
It was on a lark that I attended the fifth international conference on cold fusion in April 1995. As a retired electrical engineer, MIT 1952, I was looking for something new to hold my interest.
[…]
Two decisions came from that conference and my subsequent overview of the topic: to make a modest financial investment in a firm active in the field and to write a book on the subject (although at the time it was by no means clear what kind of a book it would be).
[…]
QuoteAnd he makes an argument that the science community rejected the F&P discovery prematurely. If this discovery had progressed in a more orderly fashioned as normal in science, then more resources had been directed to this area and we may have been further today in understanding the matter.
"If this discovery had progressed in a more orderly fashioned as normal in science", it would have never been proclaimed!
Anyway, Baudette's book will be very useful for future scientific communities, if any, of historians and anthropologists to better understand the self-deceiving propensity of the human nature. In this regard, it deserve to be preserved, along with other testimonies of this collective dream:
QuoteAnd the pioneers of cold fusion think's the book is an accurate and objective description of the actual events that took place in the early years.
Really? What an objective and disinterested endorsement!
QuoteAnd I believe you will agree on the statement made by David Nagel in the introduction.
Do you mean the same CF/LENR expert who wrote an entire article in the Indian scientific journal "Current Science" dedicated to the Ecat and its energetic performances (http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0646.pdf)?
Well, I will be glad to take his statements into consideration, when he will publish a couple of similar articles explaining why there was no excess heat in the Ecat tests and in the F&P boil-off experiment.
And that is because you do not understand the word Seminal.
I'm not disputing that the 1990 paper is a seminal document, that is (from Wiktionary) "Highly influential, especially in some original way, and providing a basis for future development or research." I just pointed out that Krivit didn't write "the most important".You probably missed the meaning of the word "most".
-
Quote
" I just pointed out that Krivit didn't write "the most important".
Krivit was instrumental in rooting out some of the LENR cranks, crooks and frauds by doing diligent research in several languages, as was "Gary Wright." Whatever happened to that person?
-
Krivit was instrumental in rooting out some of the LENR cranks, crooks and frauds by doing diligent research in several languages
Some of them? Other than Rossi, who did he root out?
Who do you consider a crank, crook or fraud? I am not familiar with Gary Wright. Other than Rossi, who did he root out?
Ascoli believes he has rooted out a number of frauds and mistakes. These are imaginary. He has found nothing. THHuxley claims that he has found errors in the boil off experiments of Fleischmann and Pons but he is not found any errors, and he has not addressed any the technical issues, nor has he found any errors in any other major paper. Morrison also claimed that he found errors in Fleischmann's work, but he did not. (See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) I doubt that you can name a single author or any paper showing any error in any major experiment. That will not stop you, or THHuxley, from claiming there are such errors, but it does mean you have no credibility and there is no reason anyone should believe you.
-
Ascoli believes he has rooted out a number of frauds and mistakes. These are imaginary. He has found nothing.
For sake of precision, I think I have found and reported some crucial errors in a series of CF/LENR tests, in particular: the Ecat tests performed in 2011 during the official involvement of UniBo; those performed by Celani in the summer 2012; and, starting from last September, the 1992 boil-off experiment documented in the F&P paper to ICCF3.
For all these tests, I have always responded to any objection to my observations. I don't believe to have rooted out anything, but I think I have provided a valid mundane interpretation of the alleged excess heat that was claimed for the above tests.
So far, all these interpretations have not been successfully confuted by anyone.
-
Keep in mind the groundrules: anybody who questions LENR results is a crackpot while anybody who proposes wildass pseudophysics theories is a visionary.
-
For sake of precision, I think I have found and reported some crucial errors in a series of CF/LENR tests, in particular: the Ecat tests performed in 2011 during the official involvement of UniBo; those performed by Celani in the summer 2012; and, starting from last September, the 1992 boil-off experiment documented in the F&P paper to ICCF3.
I agree with the errors in the Ecat tests. I suspect the Celani's tests in 2012 may have problems, but I have not looked closely. Those are not "major papers." They have not been replicated. I know of many one-of-a-kind cold fusion claims that have not been replicated, and consequently may be wrong. Ohmori's Au cathode findings, for example. Ohmori was a superb electrochemist and I know of no reason to doubt his work, but it hasn't been replicated, so it may be wrong.
Your assertions about the ICCF3 papers are flat out wrong. THHuxley's assertions about these are preposterous. I gave both of you a list of reasons from F&P's papers showing you are wrong. You ignored them. If you and Huxley were correct about boiling water in test tubes, you would be in line to get a Nobel prize for disproving hundreds of years of physics and chemistry, and showing that chemical retorts don't work.
HOWEVER, you have also claimed (in this thread I believe) that all other papers in the literature are wrong. These other studies from Storms, McKubre or Miles are somehow contaminated, perhaps because the authors believe that Fleischmann's boil-off experiments are valid. You have said that because you discovered an error in one paper, that makes all the other papers wrong. That is absurd. You have said there was no heat before the boil-off or after it, even though the methods of calorimetry in those two situations were completely different. Your magical invisible foam cannot play any role in these other methods. I suppose you honestly believe in the foam hypothesis, despite all evidence against it such as the calibrations. But if you also believe the foam can reach out in time and space and affect other experiments -- even gas loading experiments with no liquids! If you actually believe you have discovered errors in other calorimetry, then I suppose you suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. If you don't believe these things, you are trolling and making trouble. Or, like Huxley, you are putting on airs and trying to show you are a cool kid who eats that the cool kids' lunch table, not one of those nerds who believes in cold fusion.
-
it would have never been proclaimed
Well, yes it would, but they would not used the phrase "cold fusion".
And the progress would have been in a more ordered fashion in accordance with the normal science.
The essence of the discovery announced by F&P was “excess heat.”
Their small electrolytic cell generated more thermal energy than input and possible chemical reactions. And it was discovered below boiling, where you do not have the additional challenges you have pointed to.
Unfortunately trying to establish (intellectual property) priority (probably also because of the ongoing research by Steven Jones) , and under pressure from University of Utah administration, the scientists announced their results at a sensational press conference (March 23, 1989).
The unfortunate term “cold fusion” was imposed on them. Why unfortunate? Because it created the unjustified impression that cold fusion is similar to the well-known hot fusion, except that it takes place at much lower temperatures.
The only thing they knew was that the measured excess heat could not be attributed to a known chemical reaction. “chemically-unexplainable ” I think was used.
Suppose the discovery had not been called cold fusion; suppose it had been named “Anomalous Heat Event”Such a report would not have led to a sensational press conference; it would have been made in the form of an ordinary peer review publication. Only electrochemists would have been aware of the claim; they would have tried to either confirm or refute it.
And the confirmations that came during the 90's would have increased the funding and we would today had another source of energy in use.
But that is not what happened. Instead of focusing on experimental data (in the area in which F&P were recognized authorities) most critics focused on the disagreement between F&P’s intepretation and accepted theory.to better understand the self-deceiving propensity of the human nature
And you think not this is a bit premature conclusion?
I mean - you think we have reached the end of science and there is nothing more to learn?
I think not. Nature have a tendency to surprise us.
Like antimatter and gamma ray bursts occuring in our own atmosphere. No consensus on theory yet, but it's there, our instruments have detected it, not in every thunderstorm, but sometimes.
What are the conditions needed to create these gamma ray bursts or antimatter ?
Why does it not occur every time lightning strikes?
Why did not F&P see excess heat in every cell they ran?
What is the conditions required to guarantee an excess heat event to occur ?
-
the groundrules: anybody who questions LENR results is a crackpot while anybody who proposes wildass pseudophysics theories is a visionary
Yes, and Plate Tectonics was a wildass idea put forward in 1912 by Wegner, but there was no acceptance until the 1960's .
The Nobel Price winner (physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said once when his papers on Cold Fusion/LENR was rejected:
"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?"
100 years ago it was experiments that directed theory of science. Today it is theory first then experiments.
And of course, if observation does not comply with theory, then the experiment is wrong, not the theory
-
@oystia: your comment underscores my entire point. It is important to be open-minded. But that cuts both ways.
-
I agree with the errors in the Ecat tests. I suspect the Celani's tests in 2012 may have problems, but I have not looked closely. Those are not "major papers."
The "major paper" I'm referring to in this thread is the F&P paper presented at ICCF3, as you wrote in (1).
QuoteYour assertions about the ICCF3 papers are flat out wrong. THHuxley's assertions about these are preposterous. I gave both of you a list of reasons from F&P's papers showing you are wrong. You ignored them.
It's FALSE. As I already told you many times (2), I've always replied point by point to every comment you have addressed to me. I'm not THH. He will explain by himself his assertions.
QuoteHOWEVER, you have also claimed (in this thread I believe) that all other papers in the literature are wrong. These other studies from Storms, McKubre or Miles are somehow contaminated, perhaps because the authors believe that Fleischmann's boil-off experiments are valid. You have said that because you discovered an error in one paper, that makes all the other papers wrong. That is absurd.
Well, my position is a little more complex (3). However, yes, in general and by definition, every paper claiming to have verified a non-existent phenomenon is wrong and, as far as I have seen so far, there is no reason to believe that the CF/LENR phenomena are real.
In particular the "one paper" you refers to - and that contains not one but several errors - is, by your judgment, the "major paper" of MF and reports the results of that boil-off experiment you always have claimed to be the most convincing in the field:
From Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?
[JedRothwell to seven_of:twenty, August 29, 2018]
As far as I know, you have not found an experimental error in any other mainstream experiment. You thought that you found some in Fleischmann's boil-off experiments, but all of the problems you found were ruled out by Fleischmann.
Scientists tend to be persuaded by experiment rather than demonstrations. There are hundreds of bullet-proof experiments. No one has ever published a paper showing an error in any of them, so that makes them bullet-proof. If the person you are trying to persuade is not convinced by Fleischmann's boil off experiments, McKubre's calorimetry, or Miles' helium correlations, that person is not a scientist and cannot be persuaded. (Not a scientist with regard to this subject, anyway.)
Now, it happens that the two conclusions of this crucial ICCF3 paper are both wrong, and the jpegs contained in these posts (4-5) point exactly to the mistakes made by F&P. These mistakes affect not only the correctness of the ICCF3 paper, but they are so blatant to impact the reliability of their authors and this fact reduces even more the already low level of credibility of the phenomenon they claimed to have discovered.
QuoteYou have said there was no heat before the boil-off or after it, even though the methods of calorimetry in those two situations were completely different. Your magical invisible foam cannot play any role in these other methods.
I never said that foam plays a role in the alleged excess heat claimed before and after the boil-off.
The jpeg included in (6) shows the three types of XH claimed by F&P and the possible causes of error in their evaluation. The foam plays a role only in what I called HXH (High-level eXcess Heat) as shown in (4). As for the HAD, the F&P error lies in their misrepresentation of the experimental data and in particular of the time of boil-off, as shown in (5).
I haven't yet discussed the LHX (Low-level eXcess Heat), which was claimed to have occured before boil-off. For what I've seen so far, my opinion is that it was an artifact due to the complicated calculation models used by F&P. I'm willing to discuss also this last XH, but for now the priority is to reach an agreement as large as possible on the interpretation of the HXH and HAD claims.
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf
(2) FP's experiments discussion
(3) FP's experiments discussion
(4) FP's experiments discussion
-
Unfortunately trying to establish (intellectual property) priority (probably also because of the ongoing research by Steven Jones) , and under pressure from University of Utah administration, the scientists announced their results at a sensational press conference (March 23, 1989).
The press conference was not sensational. It was calm and factual. There is a video of it on the internet, so you can see for yourself.
Such a report would not have led to a sensational press conference; it would have been made in the form of an ordinary peer review publication.
The peer-reviewed paper was published on the day of the press conference. That's why they held the press conference that day. They waited until the paper was published.
-
The press conference was not sensational. It was calm and factual. There is a video of it on the internet, so you can see for yourself.
The peer-reviewed paper was published on the day of the press conference. OThat's why they held the press conference that day. They waited until the paper was published.
Agreed and I have seen the press conference.
My point here was not the press conference as such, but the principle of having a press conference at all to convey a possible new discovery, vs. science settled thorugh papers and critics before such press conference where held.
It was premature, and the news spread around the world as wildfire, and as such a sensational press release.
I believe It was the University that pressured F&P to have the press conference against their will, and to release the paper before they intended.
To my knowledge the 89 paper was rushed. I believe Fleischmann wanted more time to investigate and more time to prepare the paper.
-
I believe It was the University that pressured F&P to have the press conference against their will, and to release the paper before they intended.
To my knowledge the 89 paper was rushed. I believe Fleischmann wanted more time to investigate and more time to prepare the paper.Correct. The university was afraid of losing IP. They thought they were competing with Steve Jones. They pushed for a press conference. See Beaudette, and Peterson:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PetersonCtheguardia.pdf
The paper was rushed, as you see in the corrections published soon after:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf
Yes, Fleischmann wanted more time. As I recall, he told me he wanted a couple more years to work in secret. When I heard that I thought (but did not say): "in that case, it is a good thing the university forced you to go public." It was bad for F&P personally. Disastrous. But probably good for the world. That will depend on whether cold fusion survives, or whether it is forgotten despite our best efforts. I think there would have been opposition and suppression no matter how it was introduced, no matter when. The only thing that could have prevented that would be a larger device under better control. Alas, nature has not revealed how to make such a thing.
I recall Fleischmann may even have felt it might have been better to keep it secret indefinitely, because of national security or weapons applications. He said things like that in his letters to Miles:
-
Keep in mind the groundrules: anybody who questions LENR results is a crackpot while anybody who proposes wildass pseudophysics theories is a visionary.
You are conflating the views and statements made by different people, about different subjects.
I have said that some of the people who question cold fusion on technical grounds are crackpots. Specifically, people who say it is wrong because a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions are crackpots. Morrison was something of a crackpot because he made gigantic quantitative errors, for example, when he claimed that a chemical reaction which can produce at most ~650 J might have produced 1.1 MJ. He was even more a crackpot because he went on making these same mistakes even after Fleischmann and others pointed them out to him. That's either crackpot, or trolling. Since I cannot read minds, I don't know which it might be.
Others have praised what you call pseudophysics, which I assume are things like Axil's theories. Others, not me. I have said nothing about them, because I have no idea what he is saying. It sounds suspiciously like a word salad to me, but so do most advanced physics papers. I know practically nothing about nuclear physics so I would never try to judge it or critique it. Other people who do know a lot, such as Ed Storms, have condemned these theories. Anyway, the discussion of cold fusion experiments is rooted in 18th and 19th century experimental physics, which I understand well, and I am qualified to discuss. The physics you mention is modern subatomic physics theory. The two are very different. The criteria used to judge them are different. Replication is the gold standard of experimental science, but there is no such thing as "replication" to verify a theory. You are supposed to compare theory to experimental results, but since I don't understand the theory and the authors seldom mention experimental results, or show how the theories relate to results, I have no idea how well the theory comports to results.
As I said, I cannot judge, but experts say there is a lot of handwaving and blather in high energy particle physics, even when researchers spend $4 billion on experiments. I know nothing about this, but that is what one expert wrote recently in the New York Times, and what other physicists have told me. So, if you are going after people who waste time with pseudophysics, perhaps you should direct your ire at people who also apparently waste billions of dollars of the taxpayer's money to produce failed experiments and nonsense theories. See:
The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…arge-hadron-collider.html
QUOTE:
Before the L.H.C. started operation, particle physicists had more exciting predictions than that. They thought that other new particles would also appear near the energy at which the Higgs boson could be produced. They also thought that the L.H.C. would see evidence for new dimensions of space. They further hoped that this mammoth collider would deliver clues about the nature of dark matter (which astrophysicists think constitutes 85 percent of the matter in the universe) or about a unified force.
The stories about new particles, dark matter and additional dimensions were repeated in countless media outlets from before the launch of the L.H.C. until a few years ago. What happened to those predictions? The simple answer is this: Those predictions were wrong — that much is now clear.
The trouble is, a “prediction” in particle physics is today little more than guesswork. (In case you were wondering, yes, that’s exactly why I left the field.) In the past 30 years, particle physicists have produced thousands of theories whose mathematics they can design to “predict” pretty much anything. For example, in 2015 when a statistical fluctuation in the L.H.C. data looked like it might be a new particle, physicists produced more than 500 papers in eight months to explain what later turned out to be merely noise. The same has happened many other times for similar fluctuations, demonstrating how worthless those predictions are. -
“So, if you are going after people who waste time with pseudophysics, perhaps you should direct your ire...”
I am not going after anybody and I have no ire to direct. People are entitled to pursue whatever subjects that tickle their fancy and one person’s waste of time is another person’s vision quest. What I did was note a distinct discrepancy in how critics of LENR and proponents of arguably absurd LENR theories are treated here with regard to what comments can safely be made about them. That’s all. Apparently that is an uncomfortable observation to make, so how about if we all move on...
-
What I did was note a distinct discrepancy in how critics of LENR and proponents of arguably absurd LENR theories are treated here with regard to what comments can safely be made about them. That’s all.
And what I noted is that you are talking about two different groups of people, and two different discussions. You conflate them. So that is not a discrepancy, it is you, saying that apples are oranges. That's all.
Also, what could be "unsafe" about any of this? Is someone in danger because I point out that a bucket of water does not evaporate overnight, or that 650 is smaller than 1,100,000? Those are numbers. They will not hurt you, I promise. You can come out from your safe space.
-
What I did was note a distinct discrepancy in how critics of LENR and proponents of arguably absurd LENR theories are treated here with regard to what comments can safely be made about them.
I was thinking we can give you a thread like we did Director, where you can make up your own groundrules, and only nice things can be said about skeptics. We could call it "Skeptics- a less critical thread"?
-
let's have a vote on Affirmative Action for Skeptics
-
I was thinking we can give you a thread like we did Director, where you can make up your own groundrules, and only nice things can be said about skeptics. We could call it "Skeptics- a less critical thread"?
Well, well. Intepreting anything I said as wishing skeptics were treated more gently is an impressive leap. Let me be very explicit: I don’t give a damn what is said to and about skeptics. Really.
And Jed is correct. There are two different populations of “believers” here, to use an unreasonable but at least generally understood descriptive term. They are not equivalent and do not represent the same world view. If one hangs around here long enough that becomes readily apparent. For casual visitors, who knows?
