Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Quote from joshua cude

In fact hanging on and attempting to suppress new science would be far worse for their career if the new science were ever vindicated.

Which is why they (and others) double down with every LENR advancement. Why else would you be here? Still destined to become the greatest scandal in scientific history, as predicted by Arthur C. Clarke.

Quote from joshua cude

Yea, because taxes are everyone's favorite thing...

If you benefit from big government, then yes, you are more likely to be pro big government and taxes.

Rothwell wrote:

Quote

me:

I call it sloppy because it was. It was grotesque unscientific cargo-cult thinking.

Sure, but not long ago you said "Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher", and now you say Rossi's evidence is weak. So your simple assertion is not good enough.

Quote

me:

You are deluded! You have no clue what you are talking about, and evidently you have read nothing about cold fusion, or you understood nothing. Heck, just read Miles or McKubre.

I've read them. They do not represent improved evidence. McKubre kind of admitted weakening evidence in his 1998 EPRI report when he said "with hindsight, we may now conclude that the presumption of repeatable excess heat production was premature, and that this has limited the progress achieved…”. And as Hagelstein said recently, "aside from the existence of an excess heat effect, there is very little that our community agrees on". That suggests there has been essentially no improvement in the quality of evidence. If there were, there would be some parameters everyone would agree on, or some emissions, or some reaction products...

CAM,

There are many Cold Fusion papers in mainstream Science Journals. These are just a few ones:

Iwamura, Yasuhiro, Sakano, Mitsuru, and Itoh, Takehiko (July 2002) "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics A, Vol. 41, p. 4642-4650

Iwamura, Yasuhiro, (Presented Nov. 14, 2012) "Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Nano- structured Pd Multilayer Thin Film," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 422-425, (Nov. 2012)

Hioki, Tatsumi, Takahashi, Naoko, Kosaka, Satoru, Nishi, Teppei, Azuma, Hirozumi, Hibi, Shogo, Higuchi, Yuki, Murase, Atsushi and Motohiro, Tomoyoshi (October 4, 2013) "Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Study on the Increase in the Amount of Pr Atoms for Cs-Ion-Implanted Pd/CaO Multilayer Complex with Deuterium Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 52(10R), p. 107301-1 - 107301-8

Cirillo, Domenico, "Slow Neutron Generation by Plasma Excitation in Electrolytic Cell," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 418-421, (2012)

Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G. “Detection of Energetic Particles and Neutrons Emitted during Pd:D Co-deposition,” Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, American Chemical Society, eds Marwan, J. and Krivit, S.B., p. 311-334 (2008)

And CAM, your comments like "CF does not exist since it is not in EXFOR" is stupid, strange, naive and makes no sence.
We have not reached the end of science, and that includes physics.

Quote from cam

The cold fusion literature has been rejected by the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. So I can infer that cold fusion is rejected by GANS.

You certainly mean the state monopole(s) behind the military-industrial sector?? Aren't You?

Quote from joshua cude

You rely on the person who said in 2011 that "Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher," even though you have argued that the 2011 demonstrations were fatally and obviously flawed.

So what? Do you assume that once somebody says something you don't believe, all he said or will say is also unbelievable? It's a nonsense, and not applicable to JR. He admires Machiavelli, not Pinocchio! And in any case if you analyze carefully the phrase you have reported, you should admit that it is also believable, in some way.

Quote

The qualification "in the US" is not part of your claim.

I was talking about the different attitude toward the CF of DoE vs. DoD, two US Departments. In any case, the Hubler's scheme shows that the DoD sponsoring of CF was extended overseas.

Quote

I would need better evidence than an assertion from Rothwell.

He is the CF/LENR librarian, and, as he explained himself, he has analyzed the acknowledgements of thousands of documents he has catalogued.

Anyway, you can take advantage of the next briefing on LENR of the Secretary of Defense to the House of Representatives. The Committee of Armed Services is formed by more than 60 members (1). I don't know if on September 22, they will be allowed to individually submit some more questions to the Secretary. You are a US citizen, so, if you wish, you can try to ask one of these Representatives to submit a question about this specific point. (*)

Quote

Fleischmann and Pons were self-funded until 1989, ...

Also in this case, you should ask JR for more convincing details. I can only report you a couple of phrases I found on internet.

a – This has been reported in NewEnergyTimes (2): "The navy's researchers were also influenced by personal contact with Fleischmann. A world-renowned electrochemist and Fellow of the Royal Society, he had long been a contract researcher and consultant for the navy, and several of its scientists had published papers with him."

b – This comes from Emilio Del Giudice, an Italian physicists (now deceased) who worked with Fleischmann (3): "Ci fu una grande polemica in merito alla cosiddetta ‘fusione fredda’. nel marzo 1989 due scienziati, un inglese e un americano, Fleischmann e Pons, annunciarono di essere riusciti a realizzarla – da notare che Fleischmann, precedentemente, aveva lavorato per sette anni in laboratori militari della marina inglese." (Please, use Google for translation.)

It would be interesting to know something more by JR on this respect.

Quote

McKubre had substantial funding from EPRI, and wrote a detailed report for them.

For what I read in his Brief History of ICCF Conferences (4), the (partial?) support of EPRI ceased with the ICCF4 in 1993, but McKubre did work on CF/LENR until recently. Who funded him? Wikipedia tell us that SRI International is mostly funded by DoD (5). For any other info, ask JR.

Quote

You are using idle musings to support your case.

I'm sorry for that. I believe that no military anywhere in the world, apart a really negligible minority, wish to blow up people. I also think that JR has the same opinion, and, I agree with you, his words were only idle and rhetoric musings.

I was also in doubt to cite his quote, but I choose to include it, because it shows a blatant incongruence in the whole CF history. Many supporters and insiders of the field, for example the just cited Del Giudice, allude to the possibility to get terrible weapons by this technology. Now, this alleged use of CF doesn't absolutely fit with the policy of public support and divulging of documents adopted by the DoD units involved in the field.

Quote

So, you have failed to support the claim that the "DoD has been [cold fusion's] major funder throughout a quarter of century."

As already said, I was comparing its attitude to CF with respect to that of DoE, therefore in a US context. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see the DoD at the top of the hit-parade of all the CF/LENR funders, on a world scale.

(1) https://armedservices.house.gov/subcommittees/armed-services
(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/NET18.shtml
(3) http://www.sinistrainrete.info…be-nucleari-crescono.html
(4) http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International

(*) I would suggest to the organizer of this forum, which presently is the most important on LENR, to open a specific thread, with a poll list, in order to gather and let vote all the questions that one would like to be answered during the next DoD briefing. Maybe some members of the Committee, or their staff, will consult by their own such a thread in order to get some suggestions.

Quote from oystla

CAM,

And CAM, your comments like "CF does not exist since it is not in EXFOR" is stupid, strange, naive and makes no sence.
We have not reached the end of science, and that includes physics.

It is possible that long sought after boson particles have been created by condensed matter physics that cannot be created in high energy particle physics with nuclear active activities.

Quote from JedRothwell

I got that info. mainly from the acknowledgements in papers, and from things like the slides show above from Bob Duncan. He lists DARPA, ONR and other DoD sources as the major contributors. He knows much more about funding than I do.

I do not know of any money from the DoE or other U.S. agencies. But I do not keep track carefully. I am sure there is a lot I do not know about this.

Thank you for the specification of your sources. I think that your role is privileged in assessing the funding aspects of the field that you followed so closely since the beginning.

The slide I included in the comment you replied had been presented at ICCF18 by Hubler, not Duncan. Have you any reason to say that the shown graphic comes from Duncan?

Quote from Ascoli65

Have you any reason to say that the shown graphic comes from Duncan?

My mistake. I thought it came from Rob. He has shown similar slides. Maybe the same one.

Whoever it was, they spelled "60 Minutes" wrong.

@oystla

Quote

There are many Cold Fusion papers in mainstream Science Journals. These are just a few ones:

Let give a look at the first paper by Iwamura and others.
Iwamura, Yasuhiro, Sakano, Mitsuru, and Itoh, Takehiko (July 2002) "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics A, Vol. 41, p. 4642-4650

The paper as affected by a heavy scientific lie:

After forming a Pd complex, Cs or Sr was deposited on the surface of the thin Pd layer. Cs or Sr atom was deposited by applying an electric field to 1 mM CsNO3
(with purity up to 99.9%) or Sr(OD)2 (with purity up to 99%) solution as shown in Fig. 2(b). A Pt wire (with purity up to 99.9%) was utilized as a counter-electrode. A 1 V negative voltage was applied to the Pd complex for 10 s. The value of 1 V was chosen to suppress D2 and O2 gas generations by electrolyzing the CsNO3 or Sr(OD)2 solution.

Cs and Sr cannot be electrodeposited on a "thin Pd layer" from an aqueous solution. No Cs and Sr electrodeposited, no transmutations. The paper is trash, weird science.
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. may be a serious scientific journal on technical physics, but the reviewers were physicists who cannot be familiar with electrochemistry.
Of course the paper is not registered on EXFOR.
If you consider lenr-canr.org as important as IAEA and BNL no problem, but be aware that you can contribute to misinform or deceive people who are attracted by the fascinating world of nuclear science.

@oystla

Quote

And CAM, your comments like "CF does not exist since it is not in EXFOR" is stupid, strange, naive and makes no sence.
We have not reached the end of science, and that includes physics.

Do you think that IAEA and BNL do not care nuclear physics? Last update of EXFOR dates back to May 5, 2016.
Have you ever found in lenr-canr.org the excitation function of a lenr? As everybody, if you need an excitation function you must make a query on EXFOR, not on lenr-canr.org.

@Keiereue

Quote

experimental data provided by researchers....

Do you think that the electrodeposition of Cs and Sr on Pd is possible from an aqueous solution? In a would-be scientific forum you must stick at the actuality. Can you visit Pourbaix tables referring to Cs and Sr? Isn't Cs an alkaline metal any longer? Chemistry is not a random science.

@Keieueue
To be fair, I have asked the following Japanese databank
Hokkaido University Nuclear Reaction Data Centre (JCPRG)
for Iwamura's paper. I have found nothing yet. I will continue.
You may look yourself.
I am afraid the paper is only present in Jed Rotwell personal database. Can you see a problem?

Cam,

You claimed "cold fusion are only present in ICCF or in Jed Rothwell's collection"

And I showed you that you are totally wrong in your assumption.

And now, your argument is that these papers passed Peer review because of a "heavy scientific lie".

Are you serious, or are you making an assumption? how do you know the comptetence of the Peer reviewers? Many physists are also highly competent chemists, and your assumed "Lie" would have been discovered in the Peer review process.

If you have problems with one of the papers, you should publish a critisism and give the authors a chance to answer your questions. You have probably misunderstood something vital. Don't worry these scientists have been doing these types of experiments for and basic research for 8 years or more. They know what they are doing.

And here are more papers. So you see, there are dosens of CF papers in mainstream journals.

Lipson, Andrei, Lyakhov, B.F., Roussetski, Alexei S., Akimoto, T., Mizuno, T., Asami, N., Shimada, R., Miyashita, S, Takahashi, A, "Evidence For Low-Intensity D-D Reaction As a Result Of Exothermic Deuterium Desorption From Au/Pd/PdO:D Heterostructure," Fusion Technology, Vol. 38, p. 238-252, Sept. 2000

Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G., "Characterization of Tracks in CR-39 Detektors Obtained as a Result of Pd/D Co-deposition," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, 46, 30901, DOI: 10.1051/epjap/2009067, (17 April, 2009)

Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G., "Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 40, p. 293–303, (Dec. 13, 2007) DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007152

Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E., "Further Evidence Of Nuclear Reactions In The Pd/D Lattice: Emission Of Charged Particles," Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 94(6), p. 511-514, DOI 10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7 (March 2007)

Kitamura, Akira, Nohmi, Takayoshi, Sasaki, Yu, Takahashi, Akito, Seto, Reiko and Fujita, Yushi, "Anomalous Effects in Charging of Pd Powders With High Density Hydrogen Isotopes,” Physics Letters A, Vo. 373 (35), p. 3109-3112 (24 August 2009), (Online July 3, 2009)

@oystla

Quote

you should publish a critisism and give the authors a chance to answer your questions. You have probably misunderstood something vital.

Writing that the the electrodeposition described by Iwamura et al. is a grotesque fake is already a public criticism. Anyone who knows electrochemistry can comment freely.
Anyway Iwamura is unknown as nuclear expert even in his own country. I admit this is not very important, as Iwamura works as a private and private people can do what they like. Things are different in Italy, where many years ago at Bologna University some academicians spent time and public money practising cold fusion.
The papers you have just quoted are not archived in IAEA and BNL nuclear data bank. They do not belong to the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. I have chosen to comment Iwamura, but keep it just as an example.

@oystla

Quote

Many physists are also highly competent chemists

And viceversa? I don't think so. In Italy physicists do only one exam of chemistry in the first year of their studies. Let chemistry be done by chemists; they are everywhere if you need some help.
As for me, It would be a good chance if I knew 5% of the chemistry I should know. Physics is for me Berkeley Physics... with important difficulties and voids!

Cam - until recently, Iwamura was the lead LENR investigator for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. He moved over to assist the Tohoku University LENR transmutation project. His work at MHI was replicated by a Toyota-funded research company. The co-dep and transmuted quantities are small and there were some questions around contamination but Iwamura is considered one of the leading LENR researchers in the field. The independent replication from a credible and well instrumented lab tells me all I need to know.

Are you also implying that Bologna researchers are better than Iwamura and his Japanese colleagues?

Quote from cam

After forming a Pd complex, Cs or Sr was deposited on the surface of the thin Pd layer. Cs or Sr atom was deposited by applying an electric field to 1 mM CsNO3

Quote from cam

Cs and Sr cannot be electrodeposited on a "thin Pd layer" from an aqueous solution. No Cs and Sr electrodeposited, no transmutations. The paper is trash, weird science.

May be You should read the papers more carefully.

Iwamura used a PdCaO structure to deposit Cs...and other elements on CaO.

Citation: We have been studying low energy nuclear transmutations induced by D2 gas permeation through Pd
complexes (Pd/CaO/Pd).

@Dewley Weaver

Quote

Are you also implying that Bologna researchers are better than Iwamura and his Japanese colleagues?

Not at all. Bologna researchers have been badly involved in Focardi/Rossi affair. I live in Pisa, where nobody as ever flirted with cold fusion. I am proud of it.