ELI25 Current status of all LENR

Post below copied in here from Atom-Ecology thread. Alan

For me while seeing heat without input power is delightful, seeing the gamma girls dancing without cessation is even better evidence of enduring cold fusion. It is a short path to optimization as we have a highly complex creation that has grown over time to deliver the reliable nuclear heat and gammas with or without stimulation. But this work is still in the naturalist observor stage of adding to the already long slist of features/species in my atom-ecology prescriptions. There are more than just a few reactions with varying characteristics. New reactors designed to facilitate precise helium quantification are on the bench and fuel for them is in its fermentation pot. Well maybe that's a fomentation pot. That 4He 3He work will begin shortly and is expected to quantify the mundane regular old D+D path cold fusion path that I have blazed and followed fruitfully so many times over these cold fusing decades.

Quote from AlainCo

- Mitsubishi real Estate investing in Clean Planet. Jed is not impressed.

I do not know anything about the Mitsubishi investment. They may have good reasons to invest. I was not impressed with the results Clean Planet described at MIT, but that was many years ago. Perhaps they now have better results. I have not been following their work, so I might have missed something.

I was also not impressed that they responded by threatening to sue me, rather than by addressing the technical problems I pointed to. I was not the only one to describe these problems.

Quote from Alan Smith

And what do you think we are doing at our lab?

You have not published any technical details as far as I know, so I have no idea what you are doing in your lab. "Gamma girls dancing without cessation" is not a technical detail. You would have to describe the type of gamma detector, and show examples of the results. I probably would not know what to make of that, but people who understand gamma detection would, and based on their evaluations we would then have some idea what you are doing in your lab. If you were to publish a description of your calorimetry I might be able to evaluate it.

Since I have no idea what you are doing, and you have not published any technical information, I do not think it is reasonable to include your lab in a list of cold fusion successes -- or failures.

I think it is unreasonable for you to ask, even rhetorically, "And what do you think we are doing in our lab?" The only answer is: "We have no idea, because you have not told us."

There is nothing wrong with keeping secrets, but it is a little odd that you say this, as if you expect people to know you are doing. Do you think we have ESP? Do you think we have bugged your lab? Or do you suppose that a phrase like "gamma girls dancing without cessation" conveys useful scientific information? It does not. Russ George also wrote: "For me while seeing heat without input power is delightful." That does sound delightful. If you would provide a detailed description of the calorimetry and data, it might delight me, too. However, without that description there is nothing delightful or undelightful about it. It could be a mistake. I have seen dozens of mistakes in calorimetry from many accomplished professional researchers. I am no professional, but I have made gross errors myself. Without a description and data there is no way to even guess whether you are actually seeing heat or making a mistake.

Quote from Alan Smith

So I think we deserve to be included above.

Nope. Not until you publish. You don't deserve to be criticized or condemned either. You deserve to be left alone to work in peace until you are ready to report.

I would not add you to a list of successes until you have been independently replicated. If no one tries to replicate your results, that would be a shame, and it would not be your fault, but it would mean your results remain in limbo, and no one -- not even you -- can tell if they are real or a mistake.

Quote from Alan Smith

As for 'you haven't told us' - we have revealed plenty in the Atom-Ecology thread - and in Wyttenbach's paper and patent.

I do not think you have revealed any substantive technical details in the Atom-Ecology thread. Perhaps you did, and I missed them. For example, I have not seen what sort of gamma detector you use, or how you calibrate it, or samples of data. As I said, even if you were to provide that I would probably not understand it, but others would.

Regarding calorimetry, I have seen only one graph, which had no numbers on one axis. I have seen no description of the instrument that graph came from, and no calibrations. (Again, I might have overlooked such descriptions in this thread, or elsewhere.) The graph was reportedly heat after death. It did not look like that to me, but it is impossible to judge with such little information. So I have no idea what sort of calorimetry you are doing or how you reached that conclusion.

Wyttenbach's paper and patent relate to theory, which is over my head, so I cannot judge it or discuss it. I have no idea how it relates to your work. That's my problem, not yours. However, neither I nor anyone else who has not visited your lab and seen the technical details can judge your work, so even people who understand Wyttenbach's theory probably have no way to judge how it relates to your work.

You would not want me or anyone else to critique your work without a detailed description. People who do that usually get it wrong. That is unfair. It is equally unfair for you to expect anyone to add your work to a list of promising experiments before you publish a detailed description. You don't deserve that, or not deserve it.

Quote from Alan Smith

We're not doing this to make you happy Jed, but at our own expense

That's fine! Not a problem. No objection. However, that means you don't "deserve to be included above."

Whimsical descriptions of your work such as "gamma girls dancing without cessation" are also fine with me. Some professional scientists have said that's annoying. They feel you are making a mockery of science, pretending to communicate but actually just saying nonsense. I disagree. I like whimsy. I like jokes about experiments. "Dancing gamma girls" is not scientific information in any sense, but it is cute, and it sort of brightens the day. What harm? The only thing that would annoy me would be if you or Russ George claim you have actually communicated your results by saying "dancing gamma girls," and if you expected anyone to take that seriously.

Quote from Alan Smith

I said 'We have that kind of validation in hand' and that experimental proof of the work we are doing right now is at some point soon being taken care of by the most highly qualified workers in one of the UK's best equipped labs.

If that is true, more power to you, and congratulations. However, you have to publish that validation if you want me or anyone else to accept it. Just saying "we have validation" doesn't count. Many people have said they have validation, but when they published, it turned out to be a mistake.

I am not saying that I am the judge of your results, and until I see them, they are not real. This is not about me. I probably cannot evaluate the gamma results, but other people can, and they must, before we can judge anything. Many other people must first see those gamma results in detail with calibrations and sample data.

It may be that many qualified visitors have been there, and they have good reason to be confident you are right. We have to see a list of their names and copies of their written evaluations before we judge whether they are right or wrong. They might also be making mistakes. When I wrote the ICCF-21 paper about Mizuno's results, I reviewed many papers, messages, suggestions and evaluations by experts who visited him. Some were right, and others were wrong. I spent weeks doing that, and communicating with the people. It isn't easy. You would have to look at these message carefully to judge whether they are right or wrong. I described some of these critiques briefly in my slides, so you can see what I mean, but not in any detail. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf) You cannot expect anyone to judge what your visitors have found in your lab without first spending weeks reviewing papers written by those visitors. You wouldn't want anyone to try and judge that.

Quote from Alan Smith

So they have, bringing their own high-spec instruments at our request (as reported in the Atom Ecology thread) and they have professed themselves interested and surprised enough to want see more in their own lab to create the 'undeniable proof' experiment - their words not mine.

Great! Good. When I see their names and their words, I will probably agree with their evaluations. Until then I have no way of judging whether they are right or wrong. I have seen many distinguished scientists make big mistakes. They thought there was undeniable proof, but they were wrong. Morrison, for example, was convinced that a chemical effect that can only produce 650 J might have produced 1.1 MJ. I have seen many mistakes in the other direction too.

More to the point, I never, ever try to evaluate a technical claim by ESP. Lots of people do that here, and you see it comes to bad ends. There must be thousands of so-called "skeptics" who evaluate cold fusion by ESP, knowing nothing about it. They always get it wrong.

Quote from Alan Smith

A lab which is a dream facility for this work. And we are confident that they will end up as amazed as we have (at times) been ourselves. .

You have reason to be confident. You are familiar with your own work. You know what instruments you use, how you calibrate, and you know a thousand other details that give you a solid basis for confidence. I know none of this. Other researchers such as Ed Storms (for example) know none of this. Because you have not published it. You have published a few snippets of information here, but no organized paper with enough details to allow anyone to judge the claims. So you cannot expect Storms to believe you. That's okay with me. People should not publish until they are ready. There are too many half-baked results in the literature. However, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect anyone to believe you (or reject you!) until you publish. Just telling us that various unnamed people came, saw, and were impressed by "undeniable proof" tells us nothing.

I also will not take your word for it, or the word of these anonymous experts you cite, because that would violate a fundamental rule of science: "Nullius in verba" ('take nobody's word for it') as the Royal Society puts it. I take that to mean "give us the facts." Actually, I think it means "do the experiment and see for yourself," which is even better advice. We can't do that until you publish the details.

Quote from Alan Smith

is at some point soon being taken care of by the most highly qualified workers in one of the UK's best equipped labs.

Questions

1. Has the flogging to improve morale stopped

2 is at some point Inside 2019?

3. is at some point inside East Anglia?