the Representatives of the US people asked a member of US Government to provide information about the status of LENR research
I expect very little from this. In fact, I expect the U.S. military to use this opportunity to deny LENR and to label Rossi a conman. Why would the U.S. military have any desire to reveal what they know about LENR to the general public?
@Jed Rothwell
QuoteAs I said, experiments are the only standard of truth in science, not the the presence or absence of information in a library.
Library? They are nuclear databases.
Do you know the difference between a database and a library? lenr-can.org is a library,
http://www-nds.indcentre.org.in/exfor/exfor.htm
http://www-nds.indcentre.org.in/
are databases, where all nuclear experiments are collected.
You can rely on nuclear experiments only if they are reported in Exfor (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data), managed by IAEA and BNL. No articles in your collection are reported there. Unfortunately voodoo science, not only nuclear, is present everywhere in web. One must be very careful and selective.
I regret, but as no articles in your collection are reported in acknowledged database, your collection should be considered scientific garbage.
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.
Do you have a link to a writeup for an experiment of this kind?
QuoteLENR belongs to the set of socio-psychological myths which sustain the economy of our present world.
First of all we need a formal scientific recognition of the acronym LENR which only exists in the cf world described by Jed Rothwell. Have you ever found that acronym elsewhere?
I see that we are interested in different aspects of the many-sided world of cold fusion. I only care the scientific side; you prefer to care the socio-psychological side. Being a chemist I am in no way interested in your socio-psychological considerations, sorry.
Quote from plazma_max: “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…
Experiments with the electrical discharges on copper electrodes in the laboratory, I spent a few years. Transmutation is also possible from other metals. Other authors have also obtained similar results. Many articles on the research, unfortunately, only in Russian.
But as the example of replication experiments Russian scientists, will put an article on the experiments of the French.
Sorry for the poor quality of the images had to be reduced to upload files.
First of all we need a formal scientific recognition of the acronym LENR which only exists in the cf world described by Jed Rothwell. Have you ever found that acronym elsewhere?
The term "LENR" is not widely used in peer-reviewed journals. Look for "cold fusion" instead.
See:
CAM:Wrt your "You can rely on nuclear experiments only if they are reported in Exfor (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data), managed by IAEA and BNL."
And again and again you confuse scientific experimental discoveries of anomalies in nature with normal mundane nuclear laboratory experiments with known reactions.
First experimenters stumbled on an energy anomalie. Then by careful analysis chemical sources where discarded. What's left is a nuclear reaction. But the excact mechanism is yet to be agreed upon, among the dusins of theories proposed. When science has agreed upon the theory, you will find reports in your precious nuclear databases. CLEAR? So it's time you stop your stupid repeating comments on this issue.
CAM: "I regret, but as no articles in your collection are reported in acknowledged database, your collection should be considered scientific garbage."
Another really stupid comment. So scientific papers on dark energy and dark matter is garbage? Or do you find nuclear reactions related to dark matter in your precious databases?
@ostla
QuoteWhen science has agreed upon the theory, you will find reports in your precious nuclear databases.
Precious databases non only for me, but even for you. How could you do science without databases?
After 27 years of frantic activities cold fusion is only present in Jed Rothwell's collection. A very poor result.
Precious databases non only for me, but even for you. How could you do science without databases?
After 27 years of frantic activities cold fusion is only present in Jed Rothwell's collection. A very poor result.
This speaks to a failure of the broader scientific community, not to a problem with Jed's collection. Jed has done us all a favor by collecting and curating very important information. So when you repeatedly highlight that your precious database doesn't include information on cold fusion experiments and reactions, that should shame you.
@Jed Rothwell
QuoteThe term "LENR" is not widely used in peer-reviewed journals. Look for "cold fusion" instead.
In nuclear science cold fusion means something different from lenr or canr. Very interesting cold fusion is made in Darmstadt, Germany. Cold fusion is also the muonic fusion. Nothing to do with lenr or canr "reactions" you have so carefully collected.
QuoteAnother really stupid comment. So scientific papers on dark energy and dark matter is garbage? Or do you find nuclear reactions related to dark matter in your precious databases?
As a chemist who opposes cold fusion I am only interested in nuclear reactions.The title reads: IAEA Nuclear Data Services. Maybe somebody can offer you information about databases on dark matter. I know nothing about that item, so please don't ask me, ask rather physicists.
@ostla
Precious databases non only for me, but even for you. How could you do science without databases?
After 27 years of frantic activities cold fusion is only present in Jed Rothwell's collection. A very poor result.
Wrong again...
Note that all of Holmlid work is peer reviewed by the American Physical Society.
QuoteDisplay MoreThe findings of Holmlid and Olafsson, and also earlier findings on cold fusion field, is increasingly seen as credible among mainstream physicists. However not all, Physics Professor Dieter Röhrich at the University of Bergen has seen some of Svein Olafsson and Leif Holmlid latest publications for Aftenposten and also had a two-hour videoconference with them to clear up any confusion. Nevertheless, he is still very critical (verging on being what is characterized as a pathological skeptic, naturally so as his career is based on theories that will be up-ended as the reality of cold fusion emerges.)
Antagonist/skeptic from big money physics Vatican
Editors Note: Antagonist/skeptic Röhrich parrots the view of big money physics Vatican, aka CERN. He and his ilk have the most to lose as Holmlid’s work becomes accepted.
Röhrich acknowledges that any radiation from the experiments would be a sensational discovery, but is far from convinced.
– “Many claim that they have discovered radiation are presented in the articles, but no irrefutable evidence presented. To measure an unknown radiation source is complicated, and I do not see that they have managed to do it”, he says.
– But now that the material is the accepted by the prestigious American Physical Society and was peer-reviewed by them, the picture changes.
– He retorts, “peers are not infallible, and they can not – and should not – check everything. It does not have to be about a scam that I mean either. Most likely, the results caused by wishful thinking. It’s easy to get caught in their own world and not see the mistakes you make. That is why we in CERN has several experiments that largely does the same. A minimum is that experiments must be so nondescript that they can be repeated. But I do not even understand what they want to measure – muons, electrons, gamma radiation or neutrons,” says Röhrich. He acknowledges muon catalyzed cold fusion is possible, but notes that the muon lifetime is so short that the technology is unlikely to make practical application.”
Yet in the end he is not entirely dismissive to further explore the findings.
Svein Olafsson has been watching criticism from Röhrich.
“I understand actually criticism from Röhrich well. We had a good discussion, and I agree that probably 95 percent of everything that has been done within the cold fusion field is experimental error. Most have only using luck managed to produce energy. But the last 5 percent is scientifically published. Röhrich do not know cold fusion literature and have not had time to go through all these experiments. Therefore he shows a healthy skepticism which I respect”, says Olafsson.
Editors note: What Holmlid’s true peers have been saying for some years in published papers as opposed to off the cuff pontificating ‘wise cracks’.
“If as reported the state of ultradense deuterium exists, and if it is sufficiently stable to exist long enough, it could become for the release of nuclear energy as important as was the discovery of nuclear fission by Hahn and Strassmann. It is the purpose of this note that on purely theoretical grounds an ultradense state of deuterium cannot be easily dismissed.” – F. Winterberg 2009!
CERN priced the constitution of a muon factory for the research into the Higgs boson at 10 billion euros, but the hangup to that proposal is that the muons are not low energy, which is required for Higgs boson research. Holmlid is producing the very valuable low energy muons for just a few Euros only. CERN is pissed, no more billions for them.
see
http://www.forbes.com/sites/al…higgs-boson/#6564a2d264f0
New boson sparks call for 'Higgs factory'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar…ks-call-for-higgs-factory
IH Fanboy
QuoteThis speaks to a failure of the broader scientific community, not to a problem with Jed's collection. Jed has done us all a favor by collecting and curating very important information.
I certainly agree with you that Jed Rothwell is a diligent librarian. But the "broader scientific community" clearly doesn't appreciate his commitment.
I certainly agree with you that Jed Rothwell is a diligent librarian. But the "broader scientific community" clearly doesn't appreciate his commitment.
And that is a failure of them, not Jed. While I take Jed to task for certain things here and there (particularly the role he took up as an IH apologist), I appreciate his contributions to this field--there are few who have devoted as much time and energy as Jed.
@Eric Walker
QuoteAre you succeeding? Are your assertions here and there advancing your purpose? Are you influencing anyone?
I fear that nobody in Italy reads this forum. I was successful in the Alberto Carpinteri affair, as I first discovered it.
It is possible that some in this forum did not know the international nuclear databases, so I hope that somebody has appreciated their extent and completeness.
I hope that from now on people here prefer to consult the IAEA or BNL nuclear data base than lenr-canr.org 
.
As a chemist who opposes cold fusion I am only interested in nuclear reactions.
cam: IAEA and their members look for devote and skilled chemists, who are willing to remove the "garbage" they produced over the past 70 years. Anybody with a "clean" believe in top down structures, clean libraries and a "B- clearing" is welcome...
In the mean time the rest of the heretics is looking for a more walkable path, than digging deep holes in the holy earth, which your kids(kids)-2000 must monitor daily to remain happy...
CAM: "As a chemist who opposes cold fusion I am only interested in nuclear reactions."
A really strange strategy you have chosen for your battle.
As a chemist you should rather be highly interested in the Fleischmann and Pons type experiments, and let physisists take the nuclear battle. It's not your field of expertice.
You should rather Focus your fight against CF within your field of expertice. Say, Why not publish some critical papers on experiments related to F&P type electrochemistry?
Too much work you say ? You mean you are better at talk,talk, talk? Because talk is actually your expertice, not chemistry?
CAM: "The title reads: IAEA Nuclear Data Services. Maybe somebody can offer you information about databases on dark matter. I know nothing about that item, so please don't ask me, ask rather physicists."
AND you misunderstood my point completely. Which is that dark matter is not in nuclear data banks, since it still is a mystery. So far that is. Just as LENR is a mystery yet to be finally Solved.
AND when dark matter is identified you will find experiments and data in your precious databanks related to dark matter and dark energy. Just as you will when CF mystery is Solved.
So please, stop your stupid comments and get a life. Like work, work, work, instead of talk, talk, talk
