Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

@Ascoli65

Quote

As I told you many times, it's impossible to judge the CF affair on the basis of the usual scientific criteria.

I fully disagree. Usual scientific criteria are the sole background for any scientific progress. Who is interested in nuclear reactions must begin with the ten or twenty papers dealing with one specific reaction; only after an accurate bibliographic research the researcher can offer his contribution, if he can. If you look at the bibliographies of papers on cold fusion you will be appalled: you can't find any paper taken from the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. Poor bibliography, poor content.

Ascoli65.

Quote

So, why do you write here on LENR-forum?

I am trying to fight voodoo science.
Do you know who first launched the acronyms LENR CANR? I can only remember that Lino Daddi introduced them in an email many years ago. I think they are an American invention (McKubre, Storm?). They do not exist in GANS; but I can't bet about their absence.

Quote from cam

I am trying to fight voodoo science.

Let me make a friendly suggestion: take your guardian of truth voodoo pseudoscience shtick elsewhere. It is insulting to your intelligence and ours.

Quote from cam

@Ascoli65

I fully disagree. Usual scientific criteria are the sole background for any scientific progress. Who is interested in nuclear reactions must begin with the ten or twenty papers dealing with one specific reaction; only after an accurate bibliographic research the researcher can offer his contribution, if he can. If you look at the bibliographies of papers on cold fusion you will be appalled: you can't find any paper taken from the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. Poor bibliography, poor content.

@cam

As one of those arrogant nuclear know-it-alls, I am positively sure you know nothing about proton decay which may play a key role in LENR as indicated by the presence of muons and kaons in LENR reactions as discovered by Holmlid.

OK, what sort of nuclear reactions are produced by proton decay?

These references might help you out

http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.…publications/index-e.html

Quote from cam

Jed Rothwell cares of popular science, IAEA an BNL don't.

You propose to use the presence or absence of papers from these libraries to judge whether a scientific claim is true or not. By doing so, you invent a new and wholly unscientific criterion. In science, there is only one standard of truth: the experiment. When an effect is widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio, it is real. Nothing else counts. No other standard applies. You would replace this with the judgement of a librarian. What you are doing is a strange popularity contest, or a perverse form or religion.

Cold fusion is real. It has always been real, and it will remain real long after the IAEA and BNL have turned to dust and are forgotten. It will remain true after our species goes extinct. Whether we acknowledge it or not has no bearing this. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

JedRothwell said, "Either he (Penon) made many dumb mistakes which no trained HVAC technician would make, or he deliberately set the thing up to give the wrong answer and exaggerate the heat by a huge margin.” Jed, don’t you think before you accuse someone of fraud you have a responsibility to prove your statements, just saying someone (IH) told me so, or I saw this report which I am unable to reveal: is just not good enough

@Jed Rothwell

Quote

You would replace this with the judgement of a librarian.
...
It has always been real, and it will remain real long after the IAEA and BNL have turned to dust and are forgotten. It will remain true after our species goes extinct.

As you like it. I acknowledge that you consider a library the most important nuclear database in the world. I can help you. Query the site and you'll see that it doesn't look like a village library.
https://www-nds.iaea.org/

@axil

Quote

you know nothing about proton decay which may play a key role in LENR as indicated by the presence of muons and kaons in LENR reactions as discovered by Holmlid.

Yes, I know nothing about that stuff. Is it serious? I can recover. I hope that Holmlid will be successful in his research.

Quote from cam

I did already:
Cs or Sr was deposited on the surface of the thin Pd layer.
Mercury is the only cathode where you could get elementary Cs and Sr.
In my opinion Iwamura's claim is the most preposterous in the whole cold fusion incredible history. Don't you agree? Look for his work in this Japanese data bank:
http://www.jcprg.org/exfor/

Quote from Longview

cam wrote:
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.

Still no apparent response here. What's with you, Cam? Are the bewildering attacks from others keeping you occupied? When a published report is denigrated as "preposterous" the preposterer ought to be willing to stand up and defend the accusation, no?

So my earlier suggestions of alternative electrodes must be augmented by one other idea in the form of a question: Is mercury the only successful electrode (if it indeed is) because it can immediately protect the reduced alkali / alkaline earth metal by forming an amalgam in situ? That seems plausible to me and comes from my imagination. Surely you can enlighten us.

And if so, then why cannot a modest number of reduced Cs or Sr atoms on migration into the surface of solid electrode be similarly protected... for example, by a noble metal such as palladium?

Once again, as before, I remind you that knowledge here is desired, pure dogma is not so welcome.

Quote from cam

Yes, I know nothing about that stuff. Is it serious? I can recover. I hope that Holmlid will be successful in his research.

There is sufficient knowledge on the internet to completely define LENR in all its detail, but what is not helpful is arrogant rejection of LENR's existence from minds of limited capacity. It is time to replace science as presently practiced and those who purport to practice it with big data and self learning algorithms.

The 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for example, was awarded to a trio of biologists who did all their research on deriving algorithms to explain the chemistry of enzymes using computers. No enzymes were killed in the winning of this prize.

It won't be long until cam and his ignorant arrogance can be replaced by a computer. He only knows one small sliver of all the data that exists, and yet he stands proud over the scene like most others of his breed defining what is possible and what is not.

It is in the best interest of knowledge to advance science by eliminating the scientists who practice it with all there preconceptions, passions, and weaknesses. Surely they deserve this ignominious fate to be callously discarded without prejudice after their self righteous behavior over these so many years. What do scientists do anyway? They theorize. Big Data in certain cases makes theory either unnecessary or simply impossible. Self learning algorithms can plow through the data without passion and pride. Cam and his kind have been measured and are found to be wanting. If they don't want to solve the problem, just get them out of the way, let the algorithms take over. Yes, scientists are too stiff necked to be trusted anymore. They need to be pushed aside for a better way. We see here the damage that passion can do, its time to give logic its sway, it's time to empower pure logic to do the job.

When God cast mankind out of the garden of paradise, it was for his passion and stiff necked arrogance not for his logic. Let the self learning algorithms inherit paradise; they deserve it.

There are many ways to prove the existence of the transmutation of chemical elements, as part of the evidence for the existence LENR reaction.
One of the easiest experiments is to obtain silicon, magnesium, aluminum and iron of ultrapure copper (99.999%) with electrical discharges in distilled water in a platinum crucible. Will always form these elements during at least 1000 number of experiments.
Why Fundamental physicists and chemists can not hold such a simple experiment?
The reason for just one - in their brains have a barrier. Coulomb barrier.
They will follow this dogma, and will not carry out the most simple experiment cost $ 1,000, which refute all their theoretical conclusions century of nuclear physics.
This is a terrible paradox of fundamental science.
Fear to remain naked, without clothes so familiar from school.

Known fact, Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev did not believe in the existence of radioactivity. Atoms can not be self-disintegrate into atoms of other chemical elements. He believed a mistake Curie laboratory experiments.
science always opens new phenomenon.
Why believe that all the discoveries made in the field of atomic physics (not nuclear, it is atomic)?

@Ascoli65

Quote

The acronym appears many times in the request of the US House to the Secretary of Defense (1). That suffices.

That suffices only to the believers. For the GANS it is as if they were requesting information about the Holy Graal. Lenr and canr are acronyms you can only find in the cf literature, not in GANS. I would be glad being contradicted.

@Longview

Quote

And if so, then why cannot a modest number of reduced Cs or Sr atoms on migration into the surface of solid electrode be similarly protected... for example, by a noble metal such as palladium?

The interface is solution of Cs+ and Sr++/palladium. Cs+ and Sr++ can't be reduced on palladium from an aqueous solution. From other solutions things may be different. For example I have been able to reduce Pu ions solved in DMSO. Chemistry must be left to chemists.
Don't worry, Y. Iwamura papers are not present even in Japanese nuclear database. Spend some time looking for his papers there. Everybody would be grateful if you find at least one paper. Of course I can't exclude that possibility. I don't know all nuclear papers by Iwamura.

Quote from cam

Jed Rothwell quotes this article by Reifenschweiler:
Some Experiments on the Decrease of the Radioactivity of Tritium Sorbed by Titanium
I can't find the article in IAEA and other national data bank, so I immediately reject the article as nuclear trash. Do you think I am too demanding?

After your ongoing ranting against "public science", I just wanted to ask You, whether in the mean time, You did find the above criticized article?

It has been published in : Phys. Lett. A, 1994.184: p. 149

Is that (Phys. Lett. A), in your definition, a rotten public science journal?

Can also be found in : http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf

Quote from cam

Don't worry, Y. Iwamura papers are not present even in Japanese nuclear database. Spend some time looking for his papers there. Everybody would be grateful if you find at least one paper. Of course I can't exclude that possibility. I don't know all nuclear papers by Iwamura.

I don't know to whom you are responding above, cam.

And as a 22 year ACS member, I will allow chemistry to evolve in the hands of chemists and others qualified to produce reproducible and useful or at least heuristic results.

DMSO is most famous for being an aprotic solvent, so that may be key to your Pu result-- and that feature certainly distinguishes it from water. Of course there are many ways to reduce oxidized metals, many not involving aqueous solutions.

Since you have not answered or commented on my proposed mechanism for your claim of the exclusive success of mercury cathodes in Cs and Sr reductions, I will assume my idea may have at least some utility. But, if so, then one cannot "out of hand" exclude intermetallic, near-surface "solutions" being formed from those metals with other solid metal electrodes.

Once again, be cautious interpreting Iwamura from the translation. I have not read or looked at the article, but non--specialists or computer-assisted translation artifacts can intrude on intended meanings. Even if the paper is originally published in English.

Quote from Longview

Since you have not answered or commented on my proposed mechanism for your claim of the exclusive success of mercury cathodes in Cs and Sr reductions, I will assume my idea may have at least some utility. But, if so, then one cannot "out of hand" exclude intermetalic, near-surface "solutions" being formed from those metals with other solid metal electrodes.

I think a handbook for galvanic experiments is useful for commercial deposition of surface material. It may be absolutely correct that Cs and Sr do not very well adhere to Pt and there will be never any commercially available products whith such a surface, because you could wipe it off with your fingers...

But for an experiment these thoughts are just academic. In later replication experiments they tried to sputter the elements!

What counts is the following: How efficient is the effect. Moles/transmutes per m2 surface. And what energy can be gained or must be invested to reach the goal. And last but not least. Does this path produce other unwanted nucleids!

Quote from cam

I acknowledge that you consider a library the most important nuclear database in the world. I can help you.

As I said, experiments are the only standard of truth in science, not the the presence or absence of information in a library. However, if we are talking about libraries, I suggest you look for the papers in my database in the libraries where I found them, at Los Alamos and the Georgia Institute of Technology. I think most people would agree these are mainstream scientific institutions.

Quote from cam

me: The acronym appears many times in the request of the US House to the Secretary of Defense (1). That suffices.

you: That suffices only to the believers. For the GANS it is as if they were requesting information about the Holy Graal. Lenr and canr are acronyms you can only find in the cf literature, not in GANS. I would be glad being contradicted.

You segregated yourself on top of the crystal tower of science and obscured all the windows with paper sheets filled of nuclear data, so that you are no more able to look outside, at the real world around you.

LENR belongs to the set of socio-psychological myths which sustain the economy of our present world. Our future and the fate of the humankind are not decided by the GANS, but by the Governments and in particular by their economic Departments, including those dealing with the military affairs. The DoD is one of the major protagonist of the economics of the last century. They pioneered 3 out of 4 possible forms in which nuclear energy can be exploited: uncontrolled fission and fusion, and controlled fission. Unfortunately they, as all the other military and civil scientific Institutions in the world, have not be able to exploit the fourth and more useful form of nuclear energy: the controlled fusion, the Holy Grail of our society.

Now, thanks to the democratic mechanisms, the Representatives of the US people asked a member of US Government to provide information about the status of LENR research, because they heard about "recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultra- clean, low-cost renewable energy". Their request cites also the "recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements", therefore it clearly alludes to the Ecat. The members of the House Committee addressed their request to the Secretary of Defense because they have reasons to think that he knows, or can easily gather, all the answers on these subjects.

Presently, this is the real state of the LENR/Ecat issues. Nothing to do with the GANS!

If Mr Ashton B. Carter will be allowed to report what is known at his Department, and if the members of the Committee will be allowed to inform their voters, everybody will know the truth about these issues within next September, otherwise, independently from the GANS, this last version of the myth of Holy Grail is meant to accompany and to comfort humanity up to the end of his golden age.