The Playground

  • Why would scientists ignore results that could lead to limitless power, tons of money, and even Nobel prizes? That will be hard to explain.

    It is not a bit hard to explain. Look at the way the scientific establishment reacted to other breakthroughs that hit them in the pocketbook, such as the NMR or the discovery that helicobacter pylori causes ulcers. It is all about money and power.

    After all, they rushed to duplicate and study F&P's research when it first came out.

    Very few scientists tried to duplicate. ~130 groups did, worldwide. 92 of them were led by qualified electrochemists. They replicated within a year. The other ~40 groups did not include electrochemists, and they all failed to replicate, for obvious reasons. There was never the slightest chance most of them would succeed. They made ridiculous mistakes, such as confusing the anode with the cathode. As I described it, they were trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    Unfortunately, the groups that failed to replicate were led by influential physicists at important universities and national labs. They were published in places like Nature, and the electrochemists were shut out and attacked by Nature and Washington Post.


    The three most influential groups that reported failure actually succeeded, which is some of the best early proof that the effect is real. Harwell replicated nicely. They cooperated and gave the data to Fleischmann, who showed there was excess heat. Caltech replicated and then made a stupid mistake, hiding the excess heat. MIT held a party celebrating the death of cold fusion, then they replicated and found it worked, so they published a fraudulent version of the data erasing the heat. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf These were the archenemies of cold fusion. They would have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding if cold fusion had been accepted. They did all they could to destroy it, yet even they succeeded in replicating -- inadvertently, of course.

    I propose a better reason: most mainstream scientists who are properly qualified and have looked at LENR are convinced from the available results that LENR has never been properly demonstrated and may, in fact, not even exist.

    You are incorrect. You need to read the experimental literature, the history of cold fusion, and the opinions of the mainstream scientists. You will see from this that the mainstream scientists know nothing about cold fusion. Like you, they have read nothing and they have no idea how the experiments were done, what instruments were used, or what results were obtained. Their assertions about the experiments are ignorant nonsense.


    The results were properly demonstrated. No one has discovered any errors in any of the major experiments, which were published by scientists in 180 mainstream laboratories, in peer-reviewed literature. (They were published eventually, despite tremendous opposition.) If the opponents could have found errors, they would have published papers pointing them out. The only paper like that was by Morrison. I think it has no merit. Read it and judge for yourself:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    The only other "objections" were published by Shanahan, who is a member of tin-foil-hat school of cloud-cuckoo-land physics, where anything goes, and anything might be true. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf

  • True: Only the experiment = proven COP/scaleable process/save/cheap.. counts.

    So, all of nuclear physics up to 1945 did not count. Everything discovered by the Curies and discoveries of Frisch and Meitner was inconsequential. The Chicago Pile-1 was inconsequential and unimportant because it produced less than a watt.


    Only practical devices are important, and they spring to life like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, out of nowhere, without any previous fundamental research or effort by anyone.

  • Mega corporations are sitting on a trillion dollars business because of internal disputes?

    They do not think there is a dispute. People in upper management agree with Nature and the DoE that cold fusion does not exist. I wish there were a dispute! But there isn't. Obviously, if they thought it was real, they would pursue it.


    You have to realize, these people know nothing about cold fusion. They have read nothing, and their version of cold fusion is distorted nonsense, straight out of Wikipedia. (I mean that literally; in some cases I can recognize nonsense from Wikipedia in what they say.) If I thought cold fusion resembled what is described in Wikipedia, I would not be in favor of spending money on it. These people don't listen to their own researchers. I know this because I have spoken with the top managers, especially in Japan.


  • I think Jed is closer to the other end of the horse.


    Does anybody ACTUALLY think that a mega corp like Mitsubishi or Toyota will pass on a trillion dollar business? Really?

  • Eric Walker


    Re range of weak force. See for example here:

    http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/np3/lect-weak.pdf


    However there is then the question of how the boson masses are determined.


    1985 theoretical prediction:


    https://academic.oup.com/ptp/a…ry-of-Z-Boson-Improve-the


    Now (best experimental) Mw+/-: 80.385, Mz: 91.1876


    If you look at the 1985 electroweak theoretical prediction (giving Mz+/- as function of Mz when there was no strong experimental evidence on these masses) You get 0.3% accuracy from the best of the two options considered. The other option about 1%.


    These two options are not hand-waving, just that the calculation depends also on the quark masses which were at the time not entirely clear and determined in two different ways. It would be interesting to redo this 1985 a priori (no fudging possible) calculation with the current best values for quark masses to see then what the fit is.


    Compared with Mills claimed fit the big difference here is huevos. It is easy to look at data and concoct a method that will generate it post hoc. It is much more challenging, and virtuous, to make predictions of things _not known_ which are then tested quantitatively by future experiments.


    W and Z bosons were predicted in 1968 and discovered in 1983 - an outstanding success for the Glashow,Weinberg,Salaam standard model.

  • Quote
    You blame the victim for the crime. A German woman I knew many decades ago claimed that Poland was a much responsible for starting World War II as Germany was. What you say makes just about as much sense as that.


    This is indeed a nonsense - but Poland was actually the first country, which signed pact with Germany (Pilsudski-Hitler pact) in very similar way, like the Russia did later (Molotov-Ribentrop pact) and it invaded and annexed part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 on the basis of this pact in similar way, like the Russian invaded the Poland latter (1, 2, 3, 4). This was actually the very first military action of WWW II, which the western historians prefer not to talk about. So that with respect to Czechia the Poland did behave like "small Russia" and it was deadly punished for their avarice by both Russia, both Hitler later. So we could say, that the WWW II has started like the domino pile of conflicts and the Poland aggression was just first cube in this avalanche.


    Albert Einstein: "The devil is in details. You should make the reality as simple as possible, but not simpler".


    Edit: This post indeed doesn't belong here - but it would be great, if it would be moved together with another off-topic posts, which it cites and reflects for not to lose context - as it did already happen here.

    IfJapKh.gif

    Moved from this thread. Eric

  • OT: Nice article about the Stellarator. I know that this may be the wrong audience but hot fusion has it's place.


    The photos in the article are amazing. It is well balanced and worth a read.


    As do SMRs


    There are a whole load of exciting ideas which make fission passively safe, and eating waste instead of generating waste, and incapable of generating bomb-grade material. These three characteristics remove all the sane objections to fission except economic. There are many different designs, and while economics can never easily be predicted, they look a good deal better than legacy fission. Also, they are smaller and therefore can be tried at lower risk (OK - any new fission technology is high risk - but still this is important).

  • I think Jed is closer to the other end of the horse.


    Does anybody ACTUALLY think that a mega corp like Mitsubishi or Toyota will pass on a trillion dollar business? Really?

    If they think there's no there there, then in their mind they're not passing on a lucrative business opportunity, but rather just a waste of time. Does anybody ACTUALLY doubt that mega corps are timid, risk-averse and reluctant to draw bad publicity?

  • Does anybody ACTUALLY think that a mega corp like Mitsubishi or Toyota will pass on a trillion dollar business? Really?

    Yes, they would, if -- like you -- they do not believe the business is real. Things like this have often happened in the past, so you should not be surprised. Here are two examples, but there are thousands more:


    In the 1980s, DEC, Data General and nearly every major computer and minicomputer maker went out of business because they did not believe microcomputers were the wave of the future. IBM sold the PC, but by the late 1980s they were on the verge of bankruptcy for the same reason. In 1900, the Pennsylvania Railroad was the wealthiest and most powerful company in the U.S. By the 1920s, Henry Ford and other car makers were driving it out of business. It lingered until the 1970s but it was doomed. Why? The railroads might have invested in automobiles and airlines, but they did not.


    Generally speaking, when established businesses and other established institutions are confronted by radical change, instead of adapting to it, they fail. That is why most corporations go out of business in less than a century.


    If you want to understand the mindset of the top management at Mitsubishi and elsewhere, you need only look in the mirror. Like you, these people have not read the technical literature. The scientific experts advising them have not read the literature either. They too know nothing about the subject, and they have no idea what they are talking about. Yet the managers and experts speak with great assurance -- just as you do -- saying, "if this were true, I would know about it." They have the notion that they can judge an experiment without reading about it, as if by some sort of ESP. You, too, have that idea, so you should not be surprised they do.

  • Re the SMRs (small/medium reactors), this stood out to me from the article:


    Quote

    Small modular reactors (SMRs) are defined as nuclear reactors generally 300MWe equivalent or less, designed with modular technology using module factory fabrication, pursuing economies of series production and short construction times.


    One of the problems with nuclear reactor technology is that the capital expenditures, timelines and potential liabilities are all ginormous. In the software business, we would say that this prevents iterative development. You need to be able to get something out there, use it in production, and iterate on whatever it is that you learn, the quicker the better. This is the opposite of ITER and the NIF (to bring in examples from fusion research).

  • He had a contractual obligation to "give custody" of his secrets to anyone at I.H. He had no right to decide who within I.H. he taught the secrets to; he had to teach them to any employee I.H. designated.


    If, as you say, he did not do this, then he failed to fulfill the contract. So he should not be paid the $89 million. You apparently think I.H. should have paid him. Yet here you say he did not fulfill the contract. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. If he did not teach Murray the secrets, he should not be paid.

    Murray arrived late, when the relationship between Rossi and Darden had already deteriorated. I have said several times that I believe that Rossi has correctly transmitted the IP to IH and that IH has created functioning reactors. JT's emails confirm it. Rossi collaborated with Dameron, Murray came on stage later, when there was already no confidence on both sides. So I do not think that Rossi did not fulfill the contract: when Murray tried to replicate the E-Cat, for Rossi the contract was already at risk because he was at this point certain that IH did not intend to pay.

  • So I do not think that Rossi did not fulfill the contract: when Murray tried to replicate the E-Cat, for Rossi the contract was already at risk because he was at this point certain that IH did not intend to pay.

    Rossc, this kind of blows your narrative that IH did not tell AR about any problems until after the third PRV (puppet responsible for verification) report.

  • Rossc, this kind of blows your narrative that IH did not tell AR about any problems until after the third PRV (puppet responsible for verification) report.


    Just to help Rossc out. Maybe Rossi knew in advance that his tests were no more than a PR stunt? He would have been worried when IH seemed not to care much about the magnificence of PR generated.

  • The only other "objections" were published by Shanahan, who is a member of tin-foil-hat school of cloud-cuckoo-land physics, where anything goes, and anything might be true. See:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf

    Why do you insist on ignoring reality Jed? Your ref "MarwanJanewlookat.pdf" is more correctly written as:

    J. Environ. Monit.
    , 2010,12, 1765-1770


    which is the paper you continuously cite as somehow refuting what I wrote in:


    J. Environ. Monit., 2010,12, 1756-1764


    But the Marwan, et al paper is the one that talks about the "random Shanahan CCSH", whatever that is.


    But I never brought up a random effect. For ex., my very first paper was:

    A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated, Thermochimica Acta, Volume 387, Issue 2, 23 May 2002, Pages 95-100, Kirk L. Shanahan

    Note the word "systematic" - NOT "random"


    Get with the program Jed, if you can't read the literature (and do your homework), you ought to keep quiet. It only makes sense.

    P.S.

    No one has discovered any errors in any of the major experiments, which were published by scientists in 180 mainstream laboratories, in peer-reviewed literature.


    My first paper delineates the major error you fail to note....