Yes, and for all scientists here, don't forget :
Abstract Submission Deadline: June 30, 2016
ICCF 20 at Sendai 2-7 october 2016
-
I would like to make a bet, honour system. There will be NO apprarati demonstrating (without a doubt) LENR at ICCF20. 100 US dollars.
-
All it would take is one (two would be better) replicators working non-stop for a month attempting to duplicate the results of Focardi to produce undeniable evidence for LENR. The set of instructions and guidelines produced would allow for anyone around the world to produce high levels of excess heat.
The problem is that no one seems to have a combination of the free time, the equipment, the space required, and the desire to do so.
-
"The problem is that no one seems to have a combination of the free time, the equipment, the space required, and the desire to do so."
Jeez, the Nobel Prize is there for the picking but nobody has the free time, equipment, space required and the desire to grab it.
I would say that a far more likely explanation is that nobody CAN do it...
-
I'm not sure I follow you, Alain, but my point is: with so many hundreds of replications, why doesn't someone take one to ICCF20, convincingly demonstrates it to the world and win the Nobel Prize. Besides becoming rich to the point of making Bill Gates look like a pauper.
'Call me a "pseudoskeptik", but I think this is happening because nobody can do it. Despite the hundreds of reports of replications that fuel the wet dreams of Believers, and come from dank apartments in Moscow and other MIT-like places.
-
Great quote from Oriani!
-
Pierre:
When new discoveries contradicts the ruling Paradigm, it takes a Looong time to convince science of new realities.
LENR is considered Broadly in same category as UFOlogy. Therefore Scientists don't want to have their name tainted by seriously read or evaluate potential proof of LENR.
Mostly scientists just comment why LENR can't be true based on the "laws of nature". And they move on to less controversial stuff.
A similar story to this may be the story of the Hessdalen lights in Norway.
Since the 1950's moving lights where observed in the Valley "Hessdalen" in Norway, with a top during the mid 80's.
The usual answer from scientists where that these lights where car lights, airplanes or Venus.
And no Scientists where willing to seriously study these lights, since the mystery where named Hessdalen UFO's during the 80's. Not because the UFO naming where incorrect, but because UFO where too closely related to aliens visitors. And no serious scientists would like their name be connected to UFO observations.
But the light's never went away. And guess what: Finally, in 2010 French and Italian scientists together with a Norwegian University set up instruments to observe the lights.
They have measured the light spectrum and know something about the components that a involved, but the light's origin and energy source is still a mystery.
Something that are not explained by present theories of Physics....yet...and a phenomenon that does not appear every day or when you would like it to.........because we don't understand all the required conditions .......just like LENR
May be we are observing atmospheric LENR in action? :crazy:
-
Richard Oriani told me that in his (then) 50-year career, replicating cold fusion was one of the most difficult experiments he ever did. No electrochemist I know has said it was easy.
-
Quote
May be we are observing atmospheric LENR in action?
The evidence you cite is just as good for unicorns or fluorescent ghost wildebeests.
-
Mary,
you mean they have pictures of unicorns and measurement of its light spectrum :phatgrin: ?
-
Dear Oystia et al:
doesn't it strike to you as somewhat weird that there are hundreds of replications of LENR from dank apartments in Moscow to mayor Universities, but when it comes to the place to show them, the place that would guarantee the scientist a Nobel Prize and untold riches, undiying fame, a place next to Newton, how come nobody shows up with something that actually works.
-
doesn't it strike to you as somewhat weird that there are hundreds of replications of LENR from dank apartments in Moscow to mayor Universities, but when it comes to the place to show them, the place that would guarantee the scientist a Nobel Prize and untold riches, undiying fame, a place next to Newton, how come nobody shows up with something that actually works.
You've never been to a scientific conference I expect. They are not usually 'show and tell' opportunities.
-
Nanor was shown at MIT IAP LENR101, and nobody cared to criticize anything.
There was the balls of Dennis Cravens at NiWeek. ( EDIT:
)Beaudette have a chapter on that problems , the "Cri du Coeur"" :
Display More
When Goodstein learned, inadvertently, about the solid scientific work going on in cold fusion research his response was not unique. Earlier, I mentioned the three experienced electrochemists who visited the McKubre laboratory at SRI, Menlo Park, California, during the years 1990 through 1994. They were A. Bard, (University of Texas, Austin, Texas), H. Birnbaum, (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois), Richard Garwin, (IBM, White Plains, New York), and N. S. Lewis, (Caltech). Each spent several days examining McKubre’s laboratory practice in detail.2 They found no procedural error with the measuring technique or data reduction techniques used to evaluate the operating performance of the cold fusion type cells. They had no contractual obligations either to reveal or to keep the things they learned confidential. Nevertheless, they chose to say nothing to the scientific community.Dr. John O’M. Bockris, distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, ran cold fusion cells during the summer and fall of 1989. He reported excess heat and tritium, but the results were sporadic. At last, he came to a point where he had a cell that ran continuously for three weeks. It was time to call in some of his critical colleagues in the department who knew what he was attempting to do, so they could witness his results. The first one to be invited explained that he was busy moving from one house to another and could not spare the time. The second explained that he was simply too immersed in an examination schedule to break away, and the third just happened to be leaving on a trip shortly, so sorry. This inference of fear was a continuing pattern.
Dr. Huizenga visited the cold fusion laboratory at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, on February 28, 1997. At this time, he was retired. He was visiting at the invitation of the physics department to speak against the cold fusion heresy that was alive in their department.
Drs. Robert Bush and Robert Eagleton, full professors in the department of physics, were running light water cells. Bush was Huizenga’s host in the lab- oratory. In Bush’s words, one cell was, “. . . evidencing excess power. And, while the gain (Pout/Pin) was rather modest at that time (about 1.12), the excess power was well outside the possible error bars . . .” Huizenga was invited to spend time taking data. Huizenga demurred. Bush invited him to return on another date and do so. Huizenga demurred. Bush then offered him a fellowship to cover the expense of a return visit. Huizenga demurred. He refused all offers to participate in the experimental work in accordance with the manner of Drs. R. W. Wood and Irving Langmuir in the cases of Blondlot and Barnes respectively.
These illustrations of avoidance of the laboratory are representative of the intellectual climate ten years after the Utah announcement. If the reader feels that I have belabored my theme too long, let me say that, prior to his Italian visit, Goodstein represented the intelligent, knowledgeable, and cosmopolitan American physicist in his ignorance of cold fusion research after 1989, and in the audacity with which he has written and spoken about it without troubling to read up on the subject beforehand. What Goodstein learned was that, except for Petrasso’s well founded criticism of Fleischmann and Pons’s nuclear measurements, Baltimore was bogus. Cold fusion research was not a pathological science. The assault of Koonin and Lewis was mistaken: Fleischmann and Pons were not incompetent and delusional. Indeed, evidence of a new means of generating energy had been found in the flow of anomalous heat power that defied contemporary science.
Don't imagine the skeptic are rational.
Those who where skeptic competent and rational are (sometime discrete) believers today, like are skeptic of heliocentrism.
-
doesn't it strike to you as somewhat weird that there are hundreds of replications of LENR from dank apartments in Moscow to mayor Universities, but when it comes to the place to show them,
Most cold fusion experiments are in laboratories, not apartments. You need lots of expensive equipment such as mass spectrometers to do an experiment. The experiments take weeks or months to set up, and they are not portable. You can see that from these photos of experiments:http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187
Also, as noted by Smith, people do not do demonstrations at physics conferences. There have been instances in which they did, but most did not go well. They were not convincing. Dennis Cravens did the best job of this, on two occasions.
-
They were not convincing. Dennis Cravens did the best job of this, on two occasions.
Presumably one demonstration you refer to was NIweek2013. What was the other one?
-
Presumably one demonstration you refer to was NIweek2013. What was the other one?
Long ago at an ICCF conference, with a Patterson cell. Patterson assisted, but I think it was mainly Cravens. It was better than Patterson's own work back at the lab. It was pretty good. Not totally convincing, but I do not think a demonstration in a conference could be.Unfortunately, it was not documented, photographed or captured on video, so no trace of it remains. Dennis complained to me later that "no one pays attention." I told him that's because he made no effort to capture the information, so people never heard about it. Only a small number of people attend a conference, whereas after the conference, when a good paper is published, thousands of people read it eventually. I know this from the stats at LENR-CANR.org. If Dennis, Jim Patterson and the others had made a comprehensive collection of photos, data, and a video of that demonstration, by now 50,000 people would have seen it, instead of a few dozen cold fusion insiders.
Dennis and many other researchers have a bad habit of hiding their lights under a bushel. They do not publish or tell people, and then they get upset because no one knows what they are up to!
Dennis made the same damn mistake with NiWeek2013 demonstration. No trace of it remains. He should have uploaded a polished 15-minute video and ton of data. I would have paid for a professional to make a video.
-
"You've never been to a scientific conference I expect. They are not usually 'show and tell' opportunities."
Allow me to disagree, Alan, most of us remember a "show and tell" by Defkalion that got plenty of attention. Unfortunately for the LENR community, what got plenty of attention was a scam.
So let me ask LENR believers a serious questions: what is your plan of action? Your papers are ignored, your hundreds of replications are never replicated, and you have decided not to make a big splash at the biggest conference on the subject. Are you hoping for divine intervention?
