FP's experiments discussion


  • You have done a very nice work in your last picture. Thank you, I don't need any other help.


    And my best compliment for having understood in less than one hour that the electrodes rest on the support. I was afraid it would have taken much more time.

  • unless Ascoli65 believes all the SKINR researchers were enchanted by Fleischmann


    So Ascoli65... what conspiracy induced these seven researchers at SKINR,

    D.D. Dominguez, D.A. Kidwell, G.K. Hubler, S-F Cheng, M.A. Imam, K.S. Grabowski and D.L. Knies

    to plough through 2 years of negative results and write an official report in 2012

    highlighting their positive results confirming the work of Fleischmann and Pons in the third year?


    https://www.google.com.au/url?…Vaw0J9LkcWlSOiOo8-W6Vox-1

  • A few want to know how I know most scientists poopoo LENR or ignore it altogether. Isn't it obvious from the lack of papers outside of the few specific venues designed especially for LENR related subjects? Seen any announcements in Science or Nature? Jed predictably challenges me to prove my point by finding authors who have data to support that LENR is a very tiny and unpopular slice of scientific research. It is so much so, nobody writes about that! There won't be such papers if nobody cares (I didn't say I don't care-- I'm still curious about it and why people believe in it so much).


    It is typical of bad science that the proponents underestimate the consequences were their pet theories and predictions true. Such behavior is the hallmark of believers. IMO, that's what's going on. If anyone could replicate what Jed says the Japanese did, especially Mizuno, for example, LENR would be front and center at all major research institutes and funding would not be a problem. To think otherwise, one has to postulate a vast and dark conspiracy which causes interested researchers to basically shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting LENR, again and again. Who wouldn't want to fund and work on limitless energy if the claims for it were at all credible?

  • A few want to know how I know most scientists poopoo LENR or ignore it altogether


    Is this your 140 out of 150 cases where this generalisation is verifiable in the last five years"


    Most scientist work within their own field of competency..

    ..for example a marine biologist would not comment on nuclear physics.. plasma physics.. cosmology


    You will be surprised to find out how narrow the field of competency is in these specialised times.

    given the depth of knowledge one needs to achieve competency

    So your statement that most scientists poopoo a field outside of their own.... is really poopoo.


    Now where is your evidence that

    ""Most people including scientists and engineers who have even bothered to look at the current claims for cold fusion""


    please DO NOT respond with another unevidenced generalisation that you can dream up in an hour's time.

  • it's up to those who make claims about LENR


    You made this claim... prove it



    ""Most people including scientists and engineers who have even bothered to look at the current claims for cold fusion are skeptical or negative.""

    Try finding even 13 of twenty.. please find names and public statements.. in the last five years otherwise your claim is baseless.

    I made no claim

  • So you are trying to save the planet from LENR, and we are trying to promote LENR to save the planet. Interesting.


    I said actually that this purpose could have been claimed three decades ago. Now it's too late for any timely rescue, as confirmed by those who says that only LENR can save the mankind.


    Quote

    I think this talk about money, resources, and talent being wasted on the pursuit of something you firmly believe is pseudoscience, is overblown, and over hyped. Most of those pursuing the science are older, were (some still are) working in universities, or government labs with plenty of time on their hands. Much of the lab equipment on hand is sitting there looking for a good use. Others are volunteers, working at home (Essex for example, Storms). Then there are the companies such as Technova, BEC, BLP working either from profits, or investor monies.


    So say for arguments sake; what do you think these people would be doing were they not looking into LENR? Alan told me he would be building model airplanes. Do you want him to stop helping Russ, and start doing that so he stops wasting his time on this CF stuff? If you ask me, there are millions of scientists in the world, and sparing a handful to work on LENR is not going to hurt anything, while alternatively having a reasonable chance to change the world. So why not?


    And money...plenty of that floating around being wasted on luxuries, wars, crime, etc. so what is a few million being diverted into LENR going to change?


    Spending one's own time in researching even the most unlikely topic is a good activity. One of the less harming activity that can be done. The problems arise when this is done by professors and other public researchers as part of their publicly paid activity. They can still do it, but following the scientific rules that prohibit them from inventing or misrepresenting data to claim false results.


    Other even greater problems arise when certain political or economic sectors - the decision makers who determine the fate of countries and the entire planet – appropriate these fake results, and thanks to the scientific authority of these unscrupulous academics and public researchers, take the wrong decisions.


    Quote

    Thanks for finally revealing your motive. Here I thought it was constructing conspiracies out of thin air, and all along it has been to save the world "from the disastrous effects of a belief in another false solution to thr mankind problem".


    As I just said, this is not the motive. The only possible viable motive at this point is to restore truth. If you think that LENR is important, well, let's see if it is real.


    I tried to talk about the "foam issue" and the fundamental errors contained in the F&P paper (1) posting a series of technical analyses with the support of some jpegs (2) and urging for a technical confrontation with the other L-F members for solving as many doubts as possible. The purpose was to reach a widely accepted opinion on this important and fundamental step in the CF story. A few has responded by posting their contrary but constructive remarks to these hypotheses, others are trying to disturb this discussion.


    In your previous comment (3) you wrote "This is all about getting to the truth, and the only way sometimes to do that is a good knock down, drag out (respectful) argument." Getting the truth is what I'm trying to do and I think I'm doing it in a respectful way. As a moderator, you have a certain power in controlling the discussion. Would you help me in this effort?


    Quote

    Honestly, I think you are wasting your time, because no one is going to stop their research based on your argument there is foam there, where no one else can see it. Anyways, we have Safire, NEDO, the Russians, BLP, BEC. Texas Tech, Atom Ecology, and others to buttress our belief nowadays...


    You forgot to mention Leonardo Corp., the most advanced and financed in the field. :)


    Anyway, I don't want to stop them (I'm not even in the position to do that). They can play with LENR as long as they want, it is one of the least damaging way to spend money and waste resources. The problems arise when they receive credibility from people working for the public scientific institutions and their claims are used to misinform the public and mislead the decision makers.


    Quote

    we do not need FP's anymore.


    Does it mean that you agree with me about the "foam issue"?


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • Leonardo Tech is not the most advanced in the field


    On what basis do you make this claim?

    What portion of your 500 million $ does Leonardo have?


    The Ecat has attracted around 70 M$, the current record for the field.


    Moreover, since it appearance, it is also steadily and by large on top of the CF/LENR discussions, the only thing that can be produced by this field.

    • Official Post

    Ascoli65 . Picking one old paper for criticism (criticism mainly supported by your very individual and partial interpretation of some grainy images) out of thousands of papers produced by F&P and others, and choosing one where the principal experimenter is dead and the other long retired from public life does not disprove the reality of LENR, but only the solid reality of your own fixed beliefs. One swallow does not make a summer, and one paper you choose to criticise does not destroy a whole field, especially since your nay-saying is based on your own interpretation of matters that, due to the passage of time, can no longer be clarified exactly. There are probably a million (or more) blatantly wrong papers published in reputable journals covering the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, social science, economics and more. Some are rebutted vigorously later, most are left in obscurity, And these papers are not just 'less than perfect', but based on flawed and irreproducible experiments and data. Which is not the case with the main body of F&P's work, which was carefully performed and has been reproduced and confirmed countless times by others.


    As for your assertion that LENR only produces chatter, and not real results, perhaps you are unaware of those that 'don't talk'?


    Many researchers at the big (and secret) weapons research facilities who have access to huge budgets and impeccable diagnostics are well aware of the reality of cold fusion. They don't talk about it because they cannot, however, they do attend conferences like the ones organised by ICCF, not to attack but (sometimes) to present papers - using the names of non-military public institutions they are 'attached'' to as cover - or to ask questions that might cast light on their own work. Those who work in the US and EU secret world are well aware that the Russians have made big strides in the LENR field with military matters in mind, and are playing 'catch-up' as they can. I wish them luck, since what starts out as 'top secret' eventually becomes common knowledge. These are not mad obsessives, but some of the finest scientists on the planet, and they would not agree with you, which is just as well.

  • Picking one old paper for criticism (criticism mainly supported by your very individual and partial interpretation of some grainy images) out of thousands of papers produced by F&P and others,


    I have said many times that, as stated by Rothwell, the ICCF3 paper (1) is the major document of MF, so it is the best starting point to examine the vast CF literature, as I and many others have been invited to do. In the case of this paper, videos provide an exceptional help to verify the reality of the F&P assertions. Their quality is quite good to recognize the foam. But the most important information (and inconsistencies) comes from the timing superimposed on the images and from the blue arrows of the short video published by Krivit. These info are not affected by the quality of the video.


    I've requested the collaboration of the LENR community to clarify any aspect of this document. It would be sufficient to find the old record of the main experimental parameters (temperature, voltage and possibly current) and an integral copy of the video recording. Surely there are copies of these data circulating in the LENR community. Why does no L-F member support this request? Nobody is interested in the truth?


    Quote

    here are probably a million (or more) blatantly wrong papers published in reputable journals covering the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, social science, economics and more. Some are rebutted vigorously later, most are left in obscurity, And these papers are not just 'less than perfect', but based on flawed and irreproducible experiments and data. Which is not the case with the main body of F&P's work, which was carefully performed and has been reproduced and confirmed countless times but others.


    But this thread is dedicated to F&P and we are discussing about their major paper and how careful the work done by its authors has been. Let's examine one paper at a time. Which are the conclusions of this long debate about the correctness of this paper? Is it correct or not?


    Quote

    ... Those who work in the US and EU secret world are well aware that the Russians have made big strides in the LENR field with military matters in mind, and are playing 'catch-up' as they can....


    And would it be me the conspirationist? :)


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • It is not about critics and skeptics needing to disprove them.


    This is troll logic!


    The claims have been proven hundred times in dozens of labs. A US military lab did reproduce it within 2 weeks... Now you have to run the experiment with the proven setup an tell (= exactly document) us why it did not run.


    That's the way science works. But in Troll-topia the Ascoliypse is more likely than a troll is able to even think about doing an experiment.

  • That's the way science works. But in Troll-topia the Ascoliypse is more likely than a troll is able to even think about doing an experiment.


    No, science works in a different way. If a reliable scientist makes a claim and describe it in a public document, the first step is to check the internal consistency of that document and the supporting documentation, in our case the videos. If, some discrepancies are found, the next step is to resolve them with the help of the authors, if possible, or of the people who endorse their claims. Only after having resolved these discrepancies, it is reasonable to attempt an experimental replication of the initial claims.


    The F&P paper we are talking about fails the first step. It is internally inconsistent. It is wrong in a blatant way and its conclusions are FALSE.


    It's the burden of those who support the F&P claims to explain and solve the inconsistencies raised in these last weeks. Until now, they have failed to do so.

  • sn't it obvious from the lack of papers outside of the few specific venues designed especially for LENR related subjects?

    That is not obvious because it is not true. Cold fusion papers have been published in many mainstream journals such as the Japanese J. Applied Physics, which is one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in Japan. Papers have not been published lately because the authors are dead.


    Jed predictably challenges me to prove my point by finding authors who have data to support that LENR is a very tiny and unpopular slice of scientific research.

    No, I am asking you to prove your point by citing facts. If you cannot cite facts, show us a paper written by someone who has examined the major cold fusion experiments and found errors. There is no such person and there are no such errors.


    You need to give us quantitative facts that can be checked against the literature and the laws of nature. For example, if you agree with Ascoli that water does not boil at 1 atm and ~150 deg C, you have to say so. We can look that up in a textbook to see if you are right. Technical facts, not your imaginary assertions about popularity. Science is not a popularity contest, and even if cold fusion is unpopular that has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong.