ELI25 Current status of all LENR

Quote from Alan Smith

That experiment is yet to be performed- and they are performing it. And we are bound by NDA not to say who it might be- which should tell you a lot.

An NDA does not tell me a damn thing. In programming and business I have seen lots of garbage under NDA. As a rule of thumb, in business the value of a project is inversely proportional to the secrecy level.

There is perfect example of this in the recently published book "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup." Highly recommended by me and by Bill Gates.

Quote from Alan Smith

sorry if it doesn't suit your 1970's based scenario of how science should be done,

It suits me fine. As I said, you should keep it secret for as long as you like. I am sick of reading half-baked research papers. If you never get around to publishing, it probably wasn't worth publishing.

It is sometimes useful to publish bad ideas or half-baked ideas because it kills them off quickly. If the people in the book "Bad Blood" had not been absurdly secretive, their stupid ideas would have been revealed earlier and they might have saved tens of millions of dollars.

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm amazed that the history of cold fusion so far has taught you so little.

You are mistaken. Perhaps you have not read what I wrote. Others may be urging you to publish, but not me. I am only saying that you have no credibility until you publish. You cannot expect anyone to believe you. What difference does that make? Why do you care? It seems you have no use for credibility, since you are being funded by the secret visitors. If that works for you, that's great.

You should remember though, distinguished scientists often think they are seeing "undeniable proof" but it turns out they are wrong. I advise you not to feel fully confident until you are independently replicated.

Quote from Alan Smith

For now Jed, I give up with you. Not only are you being a grincheuse, you obviously don't even read what I write.

I should have said, "you may be funded on the recommendation of your secret visitors." You mentioned something about a larger lab.

Quote from Alan Smith

This is what I wrote. 'We're not doing this to make you happy Jed, but at our own expense'.

Of course I saw that. Please do not insist that I get every single nuance right in every statement. Give me a break here. Obviously I meant future funding, expanded funding, cooperation from others, or whatever you hope to get by inviting people in. I don't suppose these people are saying "undeniable proof" and then going home without a word and not contacting you again.

And who the hell said anything about making me happy? I am not the issue here. What is this nonsense about a grincheuse. You seem upset. Why? Because I say you have no credibility? Do you think I am the only person who says that? If others do not tell you that, they are being polite or they are putting you on. No experienced scientist will take you seriously before you publish a detailed report. Only a fool would be fully convinced without an independent replication.

If you want credibility, do something to earn it. Publish. Make your case. If you don't want to do that, don't feel put out because people don't believe you. What do you expect? You wouldn't believe you! If someone told you: "visitors have come but I can't say their names and I can't list the instruments or show any data except this graph with no numbers on the x-axis" of course you would dismiss the claim. Or you might say, as I have said: "That's good. Glad to hear. Let us know when you can tell us more." I mean that. Bear in mind that dozens of researchers have told me about breakthroughs like yours over the years. They sincerely thought they had "undeniable proof." Most of them disappeared without a trace. Most of the time, most claims do not pan out.

I do not understand why you want to be included in the list of promising researchers even though you have not provided any proof of promising research. It makes no sense. You are on the list of hopeful prospects, to be determined if and when you publish. What's the matter with that? Why ask for more?

I had to read this 3 times jed... What the hell/../.,

Quote from DnG

I had to read this 3 times jed... What the hell/../.,

What is it that confuses you? Are you not familiar with the usual standards of academic science? People who wish to make a claim have to publish a paper describing their work. They have to list the instruments and methods, show data, describe the signal to noise ratio, and so on. That is how it is done. Smith & George have not yet done this. So, by the standards of academic science, they do not have credibility, and no one should believe them. That does not mean they should be dismissed.

This is not controversial. I have never heard of an academic scientist who would disagree, or who would say "you should list me as a positive!" when he has not published anything. That would be like demanding a PhD for a thesis you have not submitted.

There is nothing like a tempest in a teapot to take one’s mind off of the polar vortex.

Quote from Alan Smith

Jed. You seem to overlook something, this is a forum, not a court of law., where more rigorous standards of proof might apply.

Give me a break. My standards have nothing to do with a court of law. They are the standards of a physics conference. Or a gab session in the student union at a university. You don't get credit for work you have not turned in yet. At most, someone will say "that sounds interesting." Which is what I said about your work!

Quote from Alan Smith

I/We am not looking for investments but merely reporting informally on what happens in our laboratory.

Informal is fine. Just don't expect anyone to take it seriously as a scientific claim.

Quote from Alan Smith

I asked Alain to be included in the list of people working on LENR, since he was writing a list of those working in the field.

You wanted credit for a promising development. You seem to want me and others to take it seriously when Russ describes dancing gamma girls. That's kinda sweet, and it is typical Russ, but it isn't science. It tells us nothing. You have told us nothing about your project.

At an ICCF conference of JCF Soc. conference, there will be 20 or 30 people presenting poster sessions with more information than you have provided. If AlainCo wants to boost the number of promising prospects, he should add them to the list. I have heard from maybe 20 others like you who have not got around to publishing so much as a poster. They and you are not in the running yet.

Quote from JedRothwell

What is it that confuses you? Are you not familiar with the usual standards of academic science? People who wish to make a claim have to publish a paper describing their work. They have to list the instruments and methods, show data, describe the signal to noise ratio, and so on. That is how it is done. Smith & George have not yet done this. So, by the standards of academic science, they do not have credibility, and no one should believe them. That does not mean they should be dismissed.

This is not controversial. I have never heard of an academic scientist who would disagree, or who would say "you should list me as a positive!" when he has not published anything. That would be like demanding a PhD for a thesis you have not submitted.

it's right from wrong JED O publish a paper to review crap..

just like working for XYZ.. as a head engineer, you get a LAMP not at patent or most times your name put to what you invented .. you get a table top lamp

The world if full of toy's that did not need review, they just do the job,

Quote from Alan Smith

You possibly missed the presentation on methods I gave at the last Greccio conference. Go read and you will know a little more.

Reactor Design and build Greccio.pdf

You are right! I did miss that, and it is pretty good. This is short, but as good as most ICCF poster sessions. So, I would say you now have more credibility than you had before this presentation.

I think this would be enhanced with sample data.

. . . It may be that most of the details in this presentation was previously posted here. I don't know about that. However, this is better because the information is in one document with a URL that can be bookmarked. And because the information is organized, rather than scattered through different messages. That may seem like a small thing, but it makes a difference. I have seen cases at LENR-CANR where good results are ignored because the presentation was difficult to follow, or badly organized, or there were spelling mistakes. Few people download the paper. When the paper is improved, many people download it. The same results attract more attention because they are presented better. It seems a little unfair to judge a book by its cover and to dismiss an author because he makes spelling mistakes, or because he is not a native speaker of English and he makes grammatical errors. Unfair or not, readers do dismiss such authors. Or they never read them in the first place.

Quote from Alan Smith

BTW- from memory this is the 3rd time I have posted this data into the forum.

I missed that. The problem is, I and others do not always read every message here, especially when messages drop off the "most recent" list. Posting the data here in messages is like writing in the sand at the beach. That is the case in most discussion groups, but I think the message system here is particularly bad. It is also difficult to find old messages.

For those reasons, I recommend you post this set of slides at your own website.

-publishing your results might certainly support W's patent - has anyone tried engineering his nanowell idea where he proposes the rotatoral collapses could be occurring? Its the only recent patent that is conceivable.

Russian (Rusetskii) and Italian(Celani) perspective-- a few months old- maybe ELI25

maybe its been posted before