ICCF 20 at Sendai 2-7 october 2016

Quote

That demonstration was poorly done and most people ignored it.

I don't know what "most people" is or if that matters. Plenty of people saw it. Enough so that there was a very active chat session in the course of which, James Bowery distinguished himself by stalking and threatening me within the chat area because I called Defkalion on their previous claims (seven of the largest companies in the world tested Hyperion -- in their forum). I called them liars which they were and they had no response. There was quite an abrasive ongoing discussion between those who believed Defkalion and those who thought it was all a scam. That sort of discussion is not what people like Rossi or companies like Brillouin want.

Quote from JedRothwell

Mary Yugo wrote:

I meant most people at the conference.

I was there. I was disappointed that Hadjichristos was running this tedious demo. As McKubre Ed Storms [according to Jed] has pointed out, watching a cold fusion demonstration is like watching paint dry. Soooooo exciting! Perhaps it might be this if the viewer supplies an imagination of an implied future, thus missing what is actually happening. The information density is low in most videos in general. It is difficult enough to see what is happening when personally present, with the high bandwidth of that, including all the subtleties of personal presence. The Defkalion live video was horrible. Boring. I walked out, most people did. I figured I could find out what happened later. If anything.

There are exceptions. There are people who can create appealing, informative, and exciting videos. They are rare and precious. Video is a tool of the emotions, and emotion is important.

Quote

Mary Yugo wrote:

I missed that, and I do not know anything about it. I was at the conference and did not have access to the Internet most of the day. I was busy attending lectures.

Internet trolls (and some others, even me, sometimes) may think that what happens in these "discussions" -- or flame wars -- is important. However, what is important is what inspires participation in something more than discussion. What inspires a Bill Gates to drop $6 million on Texas Tech? I know one element: Violante at ENEA. years of work. You will not see these people engaging in these "discussions." My own view is that someone at Gate's level has informants he trusts who will pass on anything they believe he'd want to see. There is a danger to that, an obvious one. But it is essential to handling the massive flow of information that is now available. One would have multiple trusted informants, with differing points of view. And then Gates would decide what to personally expose himself to. He's high unlikely to pop up on lenr-forum.com. Or anywhere public, like the youtube comment sewer.

Notice how rare it is that scientists comment in these fora. Jed and I are writers. I'm working with outreach, education. I have at least that excuse, I need to know what communicates and what does not. Hence, on the occasion when I do write polemic (mostly not here!) I can know what my readership is likely to be thinking. I can speak to the listening.

Quote

I do not think the demo had much influence, but it finally got Defkalion Europe off their asses, forcing them to check the calorimetry the way they should have in the first place. This is described by Gamberale.

The LENR community is very slow to condemn, particularly not in public. Defkalion was far more communicative with the scientific community than Rossi. We were friendly, mostly. Jed had some bad experience with them and wrote about it. We listened to both sides. We did not jump to conclusions. There are still some people in the field who consider that Defkalion did not go out of business, but is doing what they said they would do, continue development, only without talking about it.

I consider that possible, and consider that it is not impossible that the ICCF demo gaffe was a one-up artifact. Or that they had been sucked into a "this is cold fusion, we don't know how it works, so don't touch anything!" vortex. In other words, they did not know about the flow meter artifact. Now, how likely do I consider this? Likely enough that if positive news came about Defkalion, I would not completely reject it. I would merely be very skeptical. However, that is not really new. I had the same position with respect to Rossi and Defkalion: absent independent confirmation, beware appearing to approve of the claimed results. I found the Defkalion isotopic shift findings very interesting, and if that was not just blowing smoke, it did indicate that they had substantial control of the reaction, and it provided some clues for theory (much more clear than, say, the Lugano results.) But ...

It may have been blowing smoke! -- and bogus results can be designed to be clear!

I think that the only company with "demonstrations" running that are on a level that is sometimes worth watching is Brilliant Light Power. When the greenish glow grew until the screen went white and someone could be heard saying "Oh My God! Shut it off!," now, that was show business. Then it fell into hours and hours of I don't know what, because I shut it off. Mills got my attention but did nothing to keep it.

That demo proved nothing. However, it could gain attention. It is what happens then that makes a difference.

To create videos that actually make a difference requires work on many levels. Ruby Carat is getting there. Perhaps I should review what's been done, from this point of view. I know that a nonprofit (one that I was involved in starting), spent $10,000 for a short video to enter a contest. It was good. However, what is a measurable goal? How about raising $100,000 for some project that will make a difference with cold fusion. And that's low. How about $1 million, with a series following? How about creating a movement for governmental support? No whining allowed. Doing this without clear goals will not work. As we break up the logjam, cold fusion needs maybe a billion dollars per year, to do it justice. Right now, most of that money would be wasted, unless structures are set up that will create efficiency.

I considered going to ICCF-20. I could have done it, though it would have spent what I have. I decided that unless someone specifically wanted me to go and was willing to at least partially fund it, it was not worth that investment. There are a few people I'd want to spend time with. Most of them I can better spend time with them directly, if I make that happen (and, of course, if they are willing. Most of the people I'd want to spend time with are, in fact, willing.)

Based in ICCF-18 and what I've seen of videos, most scientists are not skilled speakers. There is no time for discussion in depth, unless one does this personally, outside the speeches. There can be more discussion at posters. Again, though, I'd rather sit down with someone and have a full conversation without a lot of distraction.

I am looking for leaders, people who will do what I do -- or better. Training is part of this. The personal payoff is enormous.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
As McKbure has pointed out, watching a cold fusion demonstration is like watching paint dry.

Mike may say that, but I heard it from Ed first.

You da boss. It's a catchy phrase that captures all the drama and excitement. For bonus points, where did he say it? Some day someone might write a book ....

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There are people who can create appealing, informative, and exciting videos. They are rare and precious.

How about <ahem> this one:

Well, I've commented on it before, on the CMNS list. Nice job, Jed.

I'm aware of how much you put into this. I wouldn't exactly call it exciting, but it is informative, it is direct, there is not a lot of fluff. I found one technical problem -- the narrator reads the script right across a question, not pausing to allow reflection. I have some possible quibbles about fact. Not serious.

It is not designed to address serious skepticism. That is not necessarily a criticism, but my question is what, exactly, is it designed for?

At the end, there is a call to action. The action is to look at lenr.org.

And that is a redirect to lenr-canr.org, the page is not designed to lead people into real action, but lenr-canr.org is a research library, primarily.

That's great, but how are people going to use this? Some go out and start arguing with skeptics, but don't have the depth or preparation.

Do we have training for activists?

From my point of view (with community project training) we have the bare beginnings here. What would measurable results be? Page views on lenr.org? That's something, but what will this be used for? I would suspect that it would be more powerful to develop a lenr.org page that is designed to bring people into an activist community, that is trained and that trains. To bring them into involvement. This requires a level of organization that we have not achieved, yet. Let's say it requires herding cats.

Cats can be herded, one merely needs to understand what cats want and how to inspire them to do what will create new realms of possibility.

That is easily said. Is it easily done?

Here is what I've found. When we are not acting with full function, these things can be extraordinarily difficult, even impossible. When we are "in the zone," it can turn out to be easy. I call it working smarter rather than harder.

Until we recognize what is missing and start to create structures for supplying it, little is likely to change.

Quote from Alan Smith

Pierre. I did not alter your words except to remove an entire sentence containing the words 'circle-jerk'. For which I did and would always criticise anybody outside of a bar-room, this is not the school playground. No words were put into your mouth at all. None, zero. They were vanished, which is not the same thing at all. Though the academic in me did sort out your spelling mistakes which was probably a bit daft. As for defending yourself, it seems you just did. Well done.

Were I designing the way the site works, a user. logged-in, would always be able to read what they wrote, for anything remotely resembling a good-faith contribution. I.e., this would not protect spam. As a writer, what can be offensive is when what I wrote is trashed and I can't even read it. That would more or less require me to write everything off-line, which is extra work. I have had good-faith contributions, not offensive -- I thought -- deleted as "spam." These actions should be reversible on appeal. Appeal process should be provided, etc, if we want this forum to advance to a more sophisticated level where a community takes "ownership" and the legal owners see themselves as trustees for the community.

The simple ad-hoc process here may be working from the point of view of the site owner(s). Pierre is an obvious troll, so I wouldn't place much weight on his complaint, and within what is standard practice here, Alan's action appears to be entirely appropriate.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Terms/ -- the site terms of use.
Who bothers reading that?

It is clear that the terms are routinely violated, and this is tolerated. That, then, creates an absence of clear boundaries. There is only one moderator who is regularly active. There is no clear appeal process. As I write above, my opinion is that Alan's action was completely justified, though I dislike that the user was not provided a copy of what was deleted. Some moderators will do that, and it is ideal if the software makes this automatic. There could be no harm in emailing a user with what was deleted or edited.

Alan already puts in a lot of work, and it is routine that he will get fewer kudos than complaints. Since I have criticized his actions, let me take the opportunity to thank him for the far more numerous positive contributions he makes here.