So Defkalion had nothing!

Quote from joshua cude

The intent was not unreasonable from the point of view of self-preservation, but also in the public interest. Sensitive patents are those that would attract a lot of attention, and a patent granted on anti-gravity that was obviously inoperable brings bad publicity to the entire patent system. Moreover, sensitive patents tend to promise extraordinary benefits, and so even though a patent is not intended to be a validation, many people regard it is as such, and so it can be (and is) used to facilitate fraud. For these reasons, additional scrutiny was warranted for such applications -- not to subject them to additional rules, but to ensure that existing rules were adhered to, since individual examiners can easily slip up now and then.

Thus turning the whole patent system on its head. Rather than protecting innovators and granting a temporary monopoly to an individual or a corporate assignee, the US Patent and Trademark Office is preserving its own credibility by avoiding "sensitive" patents under the supposed banner of Public Interest. And your lame extension is that this avoids misdirection of investment to areas not presently within the dogmatic canon. The failure to properly recognize areas of progress that cannot easily be deduced by those "practiced in the arts" is a significant problem that many engineers and scientists would argue should not be resolved or policed by bureaucrats but by the free exchange of ideas and of market forces. It is a rare, but quite perfect example of misapplication of power. That is potential fraud is given as the excuse to impede normal progress through the disclosure process.

Quote from joshua cude

It is typical of believers in some fringe idea to blame the lack of progress on things other than the most likely culprit -- the lack of an effect.

You are invited to read my 500 or so posts here over the last year and a half. You will find little evidence that I am a "believer". I am mostly a critic of quite conventional scientific errors and some errors of argumentation. Your advocacy has happened to fall into the latter category.

Quote from joshua cude

This perception is admitted by Hagelstein, one of the more prominent theorists in the field: "such an effect is not consistent with condensed matter physics, and also not consistent with nuclear physics. In essence, it is impossible based on existing theory in these fields.

So? What is the purport of this statement? "Existing theory should be the limitation to progress."

If it were, thermodynamics, metallurgy, agriculture, agronomy, chemistry, medicine to name a few fields would have been frozen to their antecedent mis-conceptions. Phlogiston, "four elements", pre-Mendelian genetics, bleedings and so on.

Peter Hagelstein is surely not saying that LENR / CF is impossible per se, just that it is apparently very difficult to understand under existing theory. He has often said that following this field of investigation will ruin one's career. That now has the name "reputation trap", a well deserved apellation. It appears that trap may be lessening in its mortal implications, as the prime dogmatists and enforcers pass away or retire.

Cude, I am sorry to report that you are likely to be on the wrong side of history and scientific progress.

longview wrote:

Quote

me:

So? What is the purport of this statement? "Existing theory should be the limitation to progress."

Obviously not. Hagelstein made the statement, and he believes cold fusion is real.

The purpose of the statement was to justify the requirement that patent applications for cold fusion claims should be required to provide evidence of operability. This isn't normally required for claims that are entirely consistent with expectations based on understood science. But if someone tries to patent an anti-gravity vest, it seems reasonable that he should show that it works first. The same applies to cold fusion, and for the same reason -- that it is contrary to expectations based on accepted science.

Quote

If it were, thermodynamics, metallurgy, agriculture, agronomy, chemistry, medicine to name a few fields would have been frozen to their antecedent mis-conceptions. Phlogiston, "four elements", pre-Mendelian genetics, bleedings and so on.

Again, no scientist since Descartes has placed theory above observation. And that was not the point of quoting Hagelstein. You objected to cold fusion being associated with perpetual motion, but perpetual motion machines were treated specially by the patent office because they are contrary to theory. The quote emphasizes that cold fusion is too.

Quote

Peter Hagelstein is surely not saying that LENR / CF is impossible per se, just that it is apparently very difficult to understand under existing theory.

Well, to be clear, he says it's impossible under existing theory, just as perpetual motion machines are.

Quote

He has often said that following this field of investigation will ruin one's career.

And yet, there are many academics and industrial scientists who have followed it without ruining their careers, although they may have limited advancement. He himself is and example. George Miley is another. Rob Duncan is a recent convert is another.

Quote

That now has the name "reputation trap", a well deserved apellation.

There are many fields that can harm a scientists reputation, including astrology, creationism, perpetual motion, homeopathy, and so on. Sometimes it's justified.

Cold fusion was welcomed enthusiastically in 1989. It was after the failure of the evidence to stand up to scrutiny that it developed a stigma. Most scientists consider it well-deserved.

Quote

It appears that trap may be lessening in its mortal implications, as the prime dogmatists and enforcers pass away or retire.

It seems the prime participants in the field are passing away or retiring even more quickly. In the beginning there was Fleischmann, Pons, Bockris, Schwinger, Yeager, and some interest from Rubbia, Gerischer, Pauling and Teller. Of this list, those still living (Pons, Rubbia) have abandoned the field (although they haven't denounced it), and some others (Yeager, Teller) abandoned it before they died. Other reasonably careful investigators like Will and Gozzi have also abandoned the field. None of the new recruits have anything like the chops of these people. Apart from Duncan, none are distinguished in any way, and many (like the MFMP crew) are not even PhDs or physicists, and have little or no experience in research. On the contrary, some (like Rossi and Dardik) have experience in fraud instead of physics.

Quote

Cude, I am sorry to report that you are likely to be on the wrong side of history and scientific progress.

Apology accepted. It should be pointed out that all scientific progress in the past 27 years has been made by scientists not involved in cold fusion research and therefore almost certainly skeptical of it, and therefore in your judgement, are on the wrong side of history and scientific progress, whereas not lick of progress has been made by all of those on what you consider the right side of scientific progress.

I much prefer to be counted among those you consider on the wrong side. Because, I am sorry to report that you are almost certainly wrong about cold fusion, but simply don't have the experience or competence to realize it.

Quote

Apology accepted. It should be pointed out that all scientific progress in the past 27 years has been made by scientists not involved in cold fusion research and therefore almost certainly skeptical of it, and therefore in your judgement, are on the wrong side of history and scientific progress, whereas not lick of progress has been made by all of those on what you consider the right side of scientific progress.

Most physicists think that Physics is dead or at least dying. Why is that?

joshua cude

On the contrary, NO progress has been made by any scientist who was dogmatically opposed to the possibility of CF. No big surprise there, but just a fact. The only apparent exception may be Robert Duncan, but he did not make "progress" by his efforts, he made progress by examining the existing record.

I am confident that I don't have to defend CF at this point. You may continue your quest to demoralize "believers" when, in fact, it is no longer necessary to "believe". You appear to be the one that may well be a dogmatic "disbeliever" (or worse).

Longview wrote:

Quote

On the contrary, NO progress has been made by any scientist who was dogmatically opposed to the possibility of CF.

That's because no scientist is dogmatically opposed to the possibility of cold fusion, and neither am I. What's not to like about clean and abundant energy? Similarly, scientists are not opposed to the possibility of perpetual motion machines. They are simply all but certain that both of those phenomena are not real.

Listen to what Douglas Morrison said shortly after he heard about cold fusion, but before he saw the evidence:

"… I feel this subject will become so important to society that we must consider the broader implications as well as the scientific ones. Looking into a cloudy crystal ball, […] the present big power companies will be running down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium separation plants and new power plants based on cold fusion. No new nuclear power stations will be built except for military needs…."

Those are not the words of someone dogmatically opposed to the possibility of cold fusion. And yet, after he became acquainted with the evidence, he became one of the most outspoken and confident skeptics of cold fusion, even while he continued experiments at CERN. He regularly attended the ICCF meetings, and wrote scathingly critical newsletters about the field.

Nathan Lewis was certainly an outspoken skeptic, and he has gone on to a productive career researching solar panels.

The Nobel laureates Schmidt and Riess jokingly signed their emails Pons and Fleischmann because they realized their idea of dark energy would need robust evidence to avoid being another cold fusion.

Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, who conceived of the incredibly innovative quarks to tame the particle zoo, thinks cold fusion is baloney.

Nobel laureate John Mather, who (with others) discovered the anisotropy of the microwave background radiation in 1992, referred in his 2006 Nobel address to cold fusion as junk science.

Not bad company, I'd say.

Quote

No big surprise there, but just a fact. The only apparent exception may be Robert Duncan, but he did not make "progress" by his efforts, he made progress by examining the existing record.

What progress? He does not appear on a single refereed publication claiming positive cold fusion results.

Longview wrote:

Quote

me:

Except, of course, when the device is presumed to be inoperable.

Right. That qualification is in my post.

Quote

Novelty, non-obviousness and utility are prime pre-requisites for patentability in my reading over the decades. You blather impressively, but I must conclude incorrectly in this instance.

You did not show how I was incorrect. The quotation I provided shows that ordinarily utility does not have to be proven. Utility *is* a prime prerequisite, but only the word of the claimant that it works is necessary "unless countervailing evidence can be provided that shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a legitimate basis to doubt the credibility of such a statement." So proof that it works is not ordinarily necessary, and if it doesn't work, it's not useful.

Longview wrote:

Quote

Thus turning the whole patent system on its head. Rather than protecting innovators and granting a temporary monopoly to an individual or a corporate assignee, the US Patent and Trademark Office is preserving its own credibility by avoiding "sensitive" patents under the supposed banner of Public Interest.

No, no. You're not reading the post. They're not *avoiding* sensitive patents. They're requiring that patents on sensitive topics demonstrate operability. I don't know why you object to the requirement that a claimant should prove what it is he claims before being granted a patent.

The patent regulations have always stipulated that claims that are contrary to current understanding can be required to demonstrate operability. All they did was say that cold fusion falls into that category.

Quote

And your lame extension is that this avoids misdirection of investment to areas not presently within the dogmatic canon.

Patents for claims that are inoperable are used to attract investment under false pretenses. It is reasonable to require proof of operability for this reason.

Quote

The failure to properly recognize areas of progress that cannot easily be deduced by those "practiced in the arts" is a significant problem that many engineers and scientists would argue should not be resolved or policed by bureaucrats but by the free exchange of ideas and of market forces.

Patent examiners have scientific training. That's obvious from the well-informed rejection of some of Rossi's patent applications. But it's not even clear scientific training should be necessary to determine whether a claim has utility or not. It's difficult to see how something could have utility and not be easily proven to work to an examiner. This is especially the case for something as simple as a heater.

Quote

It is a rare, but quite perfect example of misapplication of power. That is potential fraud is given as the excuse to impede normal progress through the disclosure process.

Requiring a claimant to prove his claim should not be an impediment, unless the claim is not valid.

Longview wrote:

Quote

You are invited to read my 500 or so posts here over the last year and a half. You will find little evidence that I am a "believer".

I only need to read "I am sorry to report that you are likely to be on the wrong side of history and scientific progress" to conclude you are a believer, even if not 100% certain.

@Cude

Quote

This is especially the case for something as simple as a heater.

Rossi has a patent for his heater. Please update your propaganda. Don't you keep up with the news or do you have a metal block to information that undercuts your agenda. Your posts are not even accurate.

axil wrote:

Quote

me:

Rossi has a patent for his heater. Please update your propaganda. Don't you keep up with the news or do you have a metal block to information that undercuts your agenda.

Rossi has a patent for *a* heater, not a LENR heater. The patent neither claims LENR, nor does it require nuclear reactions. It claims only chemical reactions.

Anyway, my argument did not depend on whether or not Rossi had been granted a patent of any kind. I simply argued that it was not unreasonable for the patent office to require evidence of operability for cold fusion patents, and that such evidence would be easy to provide for something as simple as a heater. That he has a patent on a heater has no bearing on the argument.

Quote from Longview

Peter Hagelstein is surely not saying that LENR / CF is impossible per se, just that it is apparently very difficult to understand under existing theory. He has often said that following this field of investigation will ruin one's career. That now has the name "reputation trap", a well deserved apellation. It appears that trap may be lessening in its mortal implications, as the prime dogmatists and enforcers pass away or retire.

LENR is unlikely because it is neither backed by experimental evidence, nor theoretical evidence. In that situation to chase it as a scientist is likely to result in more of the same, and therefore no career. You don't need sociological theory from a philosopher to see that.

Many here disagree with the above paragraph because they think LENR is backed by experimental evidence. I'd point out that there seems a paucity of new evidence in that case. You'd expect the "best evidence" to be recent but it seems not to be so when F&P papers are still quoted here. (The MFMP recent excitement is not evidence any scientist would view as worth anything until further investigated. That will of course happen, and should it turn out to be evidence of extraordinary radioactivity I will recant. Should it not not be validated I can predict many here will go on believing it real for a long time and it will, perhaps, be cited 10 years hence as strong evidence for LENR which just could never be replicated due to the temperamental nature of the effect).

Quote from Axil

Most physicists think that Physics is dead or at least dying. Why is that?

I can see no evidence in the real world, nor from the many inspirational physicists whom I have met or heard of, to support that statement.

Remove funding, Remove "reputation" by slandering and by an orchestrated effort to deny publication in "normal" peer-reviewed journals. Troll the remaining enthusiast groups and the usual online look up venues. Result: No widespead public recognition, no grad students or post-docs. Little or no progress.

I don't think the curve of declining results is even remotely related to the truth value of CF / LENR hypotheses or to empirical evidence weighing against either Ni-H or Pd-D excess power. The rebound in interest over the last 5 years or so may relate instead to the desperation of the eventual consequences of a world-wide carbon fueled economy. But that is a "bottom up" kind of interest and may take another decade to mature to a full research agenda. As you and others have at least implicitly pointed out, solid, high COP results that are easily replicated will greatly accelerate CF / LENR research-- or so we would hope.

@TomClarke
You only see what you want to see and just ignore the rest.

Quote from joshua cude

Patent examiners have scientific training. That's obvious from the well-informed rejection of some of Rossi's patent applications. But it's not even clear scientific training should be necessary to determine whether a claim has utility or not. It's difficult to see how something could have utility and not be easily proven to work to an examiner. This is especially the case for something as simple as a heater.

If that is the same Rossi patent application I have read, then it would not take much training to reject it. It is the picture is non-disclosure, at least the version I attended to. Don't confuse my position with that which may be typical in the Rossi fan base-- while it is rare, I am truly an agnostic with regards to Ni-H. In my personal view, pursuing Ni-H is justified because of the possible endpoint, even if there are reasons to doubt some or even all of the work so far. This is basic research, it takes capital, it may even take some degree of optimism. It certainly requires the suspension of "belief" in crippling doubts generated by skeptics. But I agree that it may be a matter of personal preference. As many would hope that Ni-H might work because of its supposed simplicity, and yield substantial excess power over that put in (XP). I consider all Ni-H work still quite tentative or very preliminary-- except possibly the Lipinski case [which I believe deserves everyone's detailed attention], who themselves disclaim CF / LENR.

No CF or LENR device, I have read of, is as simple as "a heater". Sure if the device required no rise in operating temperature, or is the XP / COP were an easily achieved 3 through 10 or more, then perhaps this discussion would be moot. In fact some have demonstrated COPs ranging up to 6 or so (Mitchell Swartz, if I am not mistaken). And pertinent to the discussion of utility, I understand that the USPTO presumption of non-operability you tout has or had blocked Swartz from patent protection (taking his comments at face value in a confrontation with David French sometime back).

The sporadic nature of the Pd-D XP results since 1989 is far more the source of sufficient data to justify a further large research effort on face value. Like others, I have unanswered questions there, but assume that there are conditions that are as yet not well defined that lead or have led to XP. On the basis of the rather limited work that has been done well so far, more effort is justified.... and is slowly going forward in spite of reputation traps laid by whomever and for whatever reasons (I gave some as examples, you appear not to accept that money and power can call the shots in Science).

On the other hand, and in my humble opinion as a trained scientist in unrelated, but very litigious patent pre-occupied field, the PdD work is sorely in need to be taken to the level of completion of say several Ph.D. candidates and an equal number of post-docs-- if not by corporate venture efforts. These questions appear legitimate to me, but there is simply insufficient funding-- combined with reputational impediments to fully investigating Pd-D. These problems cannot, and should not, be blamed on the heroic efforts of those few who have labored under the reputation trap now for up to 27 years and perhaps more.

longview wrote:

Quote

If that is the same Rossi patent application I have read, then it would not take much training to reject it.

That's true, but irrelevant. My comment was based on the quality of the response written by the examiner, which demonstrated that he was well informed, technically educated, and articulate.

Quote

Don't confuse my position with that which may be typical in the Rossi fan base-- while it is rare, I am truly an agnostic with regards to Ni-H.

Again, this is not relevant to the argument that the patent office is well justified in asking for proof of operability in cold fusion patent claims because they are inconsistent (or contrary to) consensus science, in the same way that perpetual motion claims are.

Quote

In my personal view, pursuing Ni-H is justified because of the possible endpoint, even if there are reasons to doubt some or even all of the work so far.

That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is contrary to prevailing expectations, and therefore should be required to show proof of operability to obtain a patent.

And of course you know that your personal view is contrary to that of many scientists, such as those enlisted for the DOE panels, whose judgement is that public funding for the field is not justified.

Perpetual motion has the same possible endpoint as cold fusion, and I gather you don't feel that pursuing perpetual motion is justified. So, it *does* depend on more than the possible endpoint, but also on the quality of the evidence that suggests it might be real. And it is in the judgment of the quality of the evidence that the skeptics differ from advocates.

Quote

This is basic research, it takes capital, it may even take some degree of optimism. It certainly requires the suspension of "belief" in crippling doubts generated by skeptics.

This is the sort of general argument that advocates make to support every fringe science they believe in. Unless you feel the same way about all fringe science (like perpetual motion), it is completely unpersuasive to skeptics who regard cold fusion in a similar light that they regard perpetual motion in.

It is therefore incumbent on advocates attempting to persuade skeptics to make arguments that do not apply to perpetual motion -- to argue the merits of the research itself, and not simply to repeat unspecific slogans about open minds and free thinking.

Quote

But I agree that it may be a matter of personal preference.

It's not preference. Everyone would prefer for cold fusion to be real. It's a matter of judgement of the merits of the evidence.

Quote

No CF or LENR device, I have read of, is as simple as "a heater". Sure if the device required no rise in operating temperature, or is the XP / COP were an easily achieved 3 through 10 or more, then perhaps this discussion would be moot.

First of all, all heaters require a rise in operating temperature to be effective. Heaters based on combustion, like a fireplace, or even a gas furnace, must maintain a minimum temperature to sustain the reaction. And with a fireplace, that can take some effort.

But it's the function of the device that the examiner would test, and Rossi's devices were claimed to produce thousands of watts of thermal power, and in 2011, he was guaranteeing a COP of 6. This would be trivial to prove if real.

It's true that other claims (and possible patent submissions) were much more modest, but most of the claims were for excess heat, and that is something that should be provable to an examiner.

Quote

In fact some have demonstrated COPs ranging up to 6 or so (Mitchell Swartz, if I am not mistaken).

They have *claimed* COPs much higher, and so has Rossi. Claiming something is not the same as demonstrating it. At the higher COPs, Swartz claims much less than a watt of excess power, and he doesn't use calorimetry to prove it. And by at least one account of someone who took up the offer to visit the experiment, all he was shown was a closed tupperware container with wires running in and out. Measuring isolated temperatures is not enough to make claims of heat, especially claims of such low heat.

Quote

And pertinent to the discussion of utility, I understand that the USPTO presumption of non-operability you tout has or had blocked Swartz from patent protection (taking his comments at face value in a confrontation with David French sometime back).

Swartz can counter the presumption of non-operability by demonstrating operability. But he will have to improve the experiment to do so. He could use proper calorimetry, or just increase the number of fusors or nanors that he uses. As far as I know, he has not published his results in the refereed literature, so there is little qualified support for his claims. It seems appropriate to me that patents are not there just for the asking.

Quote

The sporadic nature of the Pd-D XP results since 1989 is far more the source of sufficient data to justify a further large research effort on face value.

Again, that is not the judgement of most experts and peer reviewers enlisted by funding agencies and journals. Cold fusion results in general, fit nothing as well as they fit the classical pattern of pathological science. Whether it's claims of excess heat from Pd-D or Ni-H, or claims of tritium or neutrons or any other kind of emission or transmutation -- phenomena with sensitivities varying by factors of a million or a billion -- the results (if they have suitable transparency) are always well within the range of artifacts, background, noise, or chemistry. And invariably, when the experiments improve, the effects get smaller. Sometimes they disappear altogether, although more often, the researchers change their approach entirely, embarking on new -- again preliminary -- approaches, where confirmation bias has a freer reign. Garwin called it the "quit while you're ahead trait of cold fusion research".

Quote

On the basis of the rather limited work that has been done well so far, more effort is justified.... and is slowly going forward in spite of reputation traps laid by whomever and for whatever reasons (I gave some as examples, you appear not to accept that money and power can call the shots in Science).

According to Storms, something like $500M has been spent on cold fusion research. If the amount that has been done well is so limited, then that is the fault of those doing the work. I would agree that work is continuing in spite of everything, but I disagree that it is moving forward. There has been essentially no progress in 27 years, as is consistent with pathological science -- no increase in the credibility or consistency of the results, and no convergence of interpretation on any kind of mechanism to explain it. The lack of progress is evident by the way results from the early 90s are often cited as some of the best evidence for the phenomenon.

I do think that money and power can influence direction in science, but in my view, the only influence money or power could have on cold fusion would be strongly in its favor. That was made clear in 1989 when the world (including much of mainstream science) went absolutely nuts for it, with scientists all over the world getting involved, and with standing ovations at science conferences for P&F.

As Storms wrote in "Infinite Energy", "many of us were lured into believing that the Pons-Fleischmann effect would solve the world's energy problems and make us all rich."

Cold fusion would have economic, political, environmental, and strategic benefits for most western countries like the US. Against this, the few who might suffer temporary losses would have no chance.

Quote

... in my humble opinion as a trained scientist in unrelated, but very litigious patent pre-occupied field, the PdD work is sorely in need to be taken to the level of completion of say several Ph.D. candidates ...

At stake in the resolution of the cold fusion question are revolutions in how we get our energy, in a currently robust scientific theory, in significant environmental consequences. Those who would succeed in proving it would become (as P&F temporarily did) world famous heroes, not to mention Nobel laureates, and rich beyond their wildest dreams. If that's not enough motivation for scientists to work toward a resolution, I fail to see how a few PhDs is gonna make any difference.

Quote

These questions appear legitimate to me, but there is simply insufficient funding

To the extent that's true, it represents a disagreement with your humble opinion from trained scientists in *related* fields. For some reason, funding agencies pay more attention to them than to scientists in unrelated fields. Go figure.

But I don't agree that funding has been the determining constraint. In my view, far too much has been spent on the field. It's not a particularly expensive experiment. P&F made the original claim based on efforts that cost them less than $100k. Then they were funded by Toyota to the tune of $50M, and couldn't prove it. And 10 times that has been spent around the world without any credible progress.

Quote

-- combined with reputational impediments to fully investigating Pd-D. These problems cannot, and should not, be blamed on the heroic efforts of those few who have labored under the reputation trap now for up to 27 years and perhaps more.

The "reputation trap" is just another excuse used by supporters of all fringe sciences to rationalize the lack of progress and justify their advocacy for a field or a phenomenon they really really want to be real.

Most of the science in cold fusion is bad science, and scientists involved in it become associated with bad science. It has always been thus. This is characteristic of fields based on illusory phenomena. A lot of scientists have done experiments in cold fusion. Those who did science well got null results, and moved on to other things. No one who lived through the events of 1989 will disagree that if unequivocal evidence for cold fusion had emerged, P&F would have been (remained) heroes, and given the Nobel prize in no time. The field had every opportunity to prove itself. It was the evidence that failed.