@Jed Rothwell
... Or even this other diagram.
Can you see now the difference between a data base and a library? Databases offer an immediate answer to whatever you are looking for; a library gives you only a title. You can only hope that the paper you are going to buy is worth.
C.I.W.Tingwell, V.Y.Hansper, S.G.Tims, A.F.Scott,
A.J.Morton, D.G.Sargood
The 60Ni(p,γ)61Cu and 62Ni(p,γ)63Cu Cross Sections
Nuclear Physics, Section A; Vol.496, p.127 (1988)
I am talking about 1,200 of the papers in the LENR-CANR.org bibliography. They came from the library at Los Alamos.
Quite interesting. You haven't given us the link yet. I hope it is not your personal property.
What link would that be? What are you talking about?
The papers are listed in the index:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081
Most are listed by Britz in his index as well.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
I am not interested in libraries, but only in databases.
Okay, so you will not learn about cold fusion. Bully for you. Revel in your ignorance. Delight in not knowing.
What is your point? You do not wish to learn about cold fusion. We get that. I can see that you know nothing, and you are not interested in learning anything. It that something you are proud of? What are you doing here, if you have no desire to learn about cold fusion?
Perhaps someday when cold fusion is well understood, you will be able to look up the facts about it in a well organized database. Until then, you will have to do your own homework. This is not settled science.
@Jed Rothwell
QuoteCold fusion has been widely replicated. Therefore it is real.
If cold fusion had been replicated, you should find related papers and data in every database. Cold fusion, LENR, CANR are items absent in all databases. Somebody in this Forum fears that DoE has subdued IAEA. Do you also think we are assisting to a worldwide plot against cold fusion? Many followers think so. I think that you, as most followers, are aware that GANS refuses cold fusion. That's the real problem for you.
QuoteThe experiment is the ONE AND ONLY THING that counts.
I agree, that's why I have queried EXFOR since the beginning of its existence.
[From Mizuno's book:] In this case [an electrolysis] it may be possible for some of this electrons to acquire sufficient energy to tunnel into the nucleus. As a result, electron capture occurs, inside the hydrogen atom and alkaline metals atoms, the electrons combine with protons to form neutrons.
Ignore the first sentence for a moment, and focus only on the second sentence. If you had a transient, significant increase in electron density in the nucleus of an isotope unstable against beta decay or electron capture, what in your estimation might happen?
Have you ever read Mizuno's book translated by JR? Please do, it is amusing.
I've read it and enjoyed it. Has it been translated into Italian yet?
That's the real problem for you.
Not our problem. It is yours, and that of your databases. The LENR movement will advance with or without you.
An interesting claims on cam is that Iwamura/Takahashi/Kidwell deposition of thin-film as described is impossible.
this claims is more than stange, given that even skeptics, even Kidwell, and not Takahashi did not bump on that problem.
Is there data or answers on that question ?
note that skeptics claims, when they claims something surprising (extraordinary) need evidence not less farther tha what they ask.
sure the measurements of Pr by Iwamura and takahashi, with a clear exchange of concentration is an extraordinary evidence.
I don't think this is compatible with Cam theory of "thin film of that kind are impossible to make that way"... at least this requires more details.
I though he was a physicist which could explain a total incompetence in electrochemistry, but since he claims to be a chemist, there is possibility he have something meaningful to say.
Maybe is it a misunderstanding, as usual.
I don't think this is compatible with Cam theory of "thin film of that kind are impossible to make that way"... at least this requires more details.
I though he was a physicist which could explain a total incompetence in electrochemistry, but since he claims to be a chemist, there is possibility he have something meaningful to say.
Maybe is it a misunderstanding, as usual.
Yes, that was my continued point with 'cam' as well. 'cam' seems to advocate from a position that it knows everything about electrochemistry. Further, there is the assumption / assertion by 'cam' that following Iwamura's prescription exactly will result in "no current". Well maybe that is exactly why we should pay great attention. Is this the path to vaunted "over potential" that was claimed at a volt or so to drive Nernst pressure to exceed the pressure in the Solar core-- at least in some versions of F&P's presumed mistaken analysis, or in that of Mizuno? (I want to hear those critiques of the Nernst pressure story once again... its music to my iconoclastic ears.)
Of course we could completely ignore 'cam' with respect to the "absence of evidence" in the databases mentioned, since this could easily be just "confirmation bias" on steroids, so to speak. I suspect it is either evidence of their curation failure or possibly a deliberate redaction to preserve against possible military applications reaching the public, or worse. And of course there are huge potential financial interests at stake. As one of many examples, certainly Amoco and others replicated F&P and attempted to bury their findings as "Proprietary, internal use only". For example: Lautzenhiser & Phelps, 1994, copy possibly released by Eisner, an early participant in the "garage" version of the Amoco effort that led to excess heat. Another version of that Amoco report here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
Of course 'cam' has a self serving point: by its definition CF reactions are "not nuclear". Arguably a mistake as many point out over the years. Surely they must ultimately be nuclear, and they are evidence that nuclear does not necessarily involve HF conditions, or thermonuclear conditions, or solar core conditions. The cosmic and local abundances of isotopes likely shows what other paths to isotopic transformation may exist. Without the slightest nod to "recent creation".
@Jed Rothwell
QuoteWhat link would that be? What are you talking about?
The link to Los Alamos library. Is it a library or a database? Is it something like BNL database? The only American nuclear database I know has been set up by Brookhaven National Laboratory. Does another EXFOR exist in the US? Thank you for letting me know. I never exclude new possibilities.
Andrea.s
Quotehe is quite tolerant of Rossi's hocus pocus devices, which drain no public funds while emptying the pockets of clueless investors.
Rossi is only one of the many who try to earn the daily life trying to saddle with an invention. You must not chase anyone of them, there a plenty of them.
He behaves responsibly and never ever has aimed at public funds.
He looks like an eccentric and amusing guy. Let him make his life, especially if he continues to live in the USA.
He doesn't deserve contempt. In a sense he is admirable. Nobody ha been so successful with cold fusion.
If cold fusion had been replicated, you should find related papers and data in every database.
By magic, I suppose. All scientists and all librarians magically agree with conclusions they have not read and know nothing about, and without even realizing it, they add information to their databases. They do this even though Nature magazine and the DoE attack cold fusion and ridicule it. Because scientists never make mistakes, unlike other people, and by some magic ESP they always add data they have not read in their databases.
You have strange notions about how the world works.
If you want to learn about cold fusion, you have to do science. You have to read and think for yourself. If you want a librarian somewhere to spoon-feed you information, and if you want to believe only what that librarian tells you to believe, you are not doing science. That is some kind of weird religion, where you treat a database in a library as Holy Writ and believe only what you are told to believe.
Alan Smith wrote -
Thus my interest is in developing systems that can readily and indisputably show LENR effects when present.
Very interesting. Are you developing new detection methods of nuclear events or are you more interested in calorimetry, like most cold fusionists?
I am interested in systems that can show a difference between an ever-present control sample and a test sample sharing the same (as close as I can get it) environment at the same moment in time. So comparative calorimetry, and comparitave radiometry can both be carried out with ease and confidence.
Quotetrying to decide whether a paper has scientific merit by looking at the library you find it, rather than examining the content, is not scientific.
Again: yours is a library, things made by IAEA, BNL and others are databases.
If you have decided to study Focardi's reaction where do you begin from? From a data base where that reaction is described by, say, thirty experts. You must begin from well-known facts to go towards the ignote. Nuclear science is typically incremental; beginning from scratch is foolish, time and money consuming.
But the real point is that nowhere, but in your collection, you find the words lenr, canr, cold fusion (in the meaning used in this forum). You have built a personal science which doesn't extend outside dedicated forums like this one or JoNP.
cam, can you be any more repetitive? You've said your piece. Let's move on.
Ciao GinoB,
I'm sorry I can not support your effort, also because of the language barrier; Google Translator helps but that's not enough.
No problem, there is no effort to support. I only took the occasion, thanks to the kind hospitality of this site, to share my point of view with the members of the widest LENR community. I find that the CF/LENR is the most interesting socio-psychological phenomenon. IMO, it is the most meaningful example of self-deceiving of the human being, and, ironically, it's happening at the apex of its scientific progress. There are also many concrete reasons for this to happen, and I guess they are well known by those who decided to support it. But, of course, we can't influence those choices. At most, we can show to a few people another way to interpret what is happening around.
As for the linguistic problem, I mostly rely on the patience of the readers. 
QuoteThe precedent of the parliamentary question from Mr Realacci in Italy (about two years with no response to date, IIRC) is not encouraging for such an initiative; perhaps Parliaments in general do not wish to take a public stand on certain issues.
For the sake of precision, Mr. Realacci submitted his questions to the Minister of Education in October 2013, almost three years ago. And, as we know, others previous parliamentary questions on the same subject remained unanswered. However, these omissions are not due to the Parliament, but to the Government. Usually, the Representatives like to deal with the most popular side of the problems. If they hear that an accredited scientist claims to have found a miraculous method to produce energy, they immediately urge the charged Ministers to fund the research, because, in the short-term, this fulfills the expectancies widely spread among the consumers/voters. Also the Ministers like to increase the budget of theirs Department, but they have more external constraints, so they cannot satisfy all the funding requests, and rather than reject, prefer to ignore them. This is the situation in Italy, and probably in many other countries.
QuoteOr, not answering could also be a diplomatic way to make it clear that the question is meaningless in the view of the respondents.
From what has been said in a previous comment (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), the US situation is similar to ours, but the specific case of the next briefing on LENR is different. Firstly, it has been required by a Parliamentary Committee and not by some single Representatives. Secondly, it has been addressed to the Secretary of Defense, and the US military know better of any other institutional organization what is at stake with the LENR.
Moreover, I see quite difficult for the Secretary of Defense to ignore the Committee's request. Cold fusion is a well known popular story and is well described on Wikipedia. The present version of the "cold fusion" page already reports (1): In May 2016, the United States House Committee on Armed Services, in its report on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, states that it is "aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions", and directed the Secretary of Defense to "provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016."
How will end that Wikipedia section in October? The Secretary of Defense "ignored the request", or "refused to answer", or "said that he didn't know the answers"? This last option sounds quite impracticable, because exactly one year before, on September 23, 2015, a well trained physicist of his Department got the approval to publicly release a presentation which contains nearly all the answers to the Committee questions (2), and ends with (3): "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions appear to be real; are probably attributable to something like nuclear fusion" and many other optimistic assessments on the Ecat.
Is Mr. Carter, which is also a physicist (4), going to confirm these conclusions?
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#United_States
(2) http://ieeeboston.org/event/le…d-potential-applications/
(3) www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index…rief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Carter
Is Mr. Carter, which is also a physicist (4), going to confirm these conclusions?
I doubt it. The official position will be something along the lines of "we looked into it but have ceased all further funding or research into this phenomena" aka SPAWAR style. (But then secretly carry on research.)
Of course, I could be wrong.
The official position will be/should be, we are uncertain about claims for low levels of power from LENR. Perhaps modest funding could be provided to pursue this issue provided that the experiments proposed are clear cut and properly designed, controlled, and calibrated. As for high power LENR, there is no evidence whatever that it works. Defkalion and Rossi, the main claimants, were scams and Brillouin has shown no conclusive evidence that their reactors work. Just daydreaming of course.
Nuclear chemistry is the subdiscipline of chemistry that is concerned with changes in the nucleus of elements. These changes are the source of radioactivity and nuclear power. Since radioactivity is associated with nuclear power generation, the concomitant disposal of radioactive waste, and some medical procedures, everyone should have a fundamental understanding of radioactivity and nuclear transformations in order to evaluate and discuss these issues intelligently and objectively.
From the introduction to the Penn State online course.
If that is so, what is Nuclear Physics? I think Nuclear Chemistry is an historical name for what today is classified as Nuclear Physics. But as long as you don't say Nucilar, it's OK.
I would say: electron shell - Chemistry. Nucleus - Physics.
Yahoo used (maybe still?) to classify Nuclear Physics as a subgroup of Particle Physics. Historically it is the other way around, but Particle Physics is now considered a separate branch of Physics.
I find that the CF/LENR is the most interesting socio-psychological phenomenon. IMO, it is the most meaningful example of self-deceiving of the human being, and, ironically, it's happening at the apex of its scientific progress.
I too find the socio-psychological aspects of CF/LENR interesting as well. It is perhaps the most meaningful example of outright refusal of human beings to associate with or even consider vast troves of confirmatory experimental evidence spanning a quarter of a century. It is a study in the visceral and emotional reaction of most physicists and other scientists to the mere mention of the field. It is a study in the aversion of people like you to the topic, and the lengths to which you will go to attempt to "save" us from our supposed delusions. That is what I find interesting.
I too find the socio-psychological aspects of CF/LENR interesting as well. It is perhaps the most meaningful example of outright refusal of human beings to associate with or even consider vast troves of confirmatory experimental evidence spanning a quarter of a century. It is a study in the visceral and emotional reaction of most physicists and other scientists to the mere mention of the field. It is a study in the aversion of people like you to the topic, and the lengths to which you will go to attempt to "save" us from our supposed delusions. That is what I find interesting.
I have notices the opposite effect where LENR activists refuse to acknowledge the recent finding in experimental science as applied to possible connection to the LENR reaction. The obsession with steam and excess heat is really retarded.
The official position will be/should be, we are uncertain about claims for low levels of power from LENR.
Cold fusion anomalous heat has been replicated thousands of times in over 180 major laboratories, and reported in hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers. It has been observed usually at low levels, but in many cases at 10 W or more. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…tormsPeakheat124tests.jpg
If this were any other physical phenomenon, no scientist anywhere on earth would doubt it is real. In the history of science, nothing so widely replicated has ever before been in doubt. If this many mistakes were possible, experimental science would not work, and we humans would still be living in caves.
When you claim we are "uncertain" of this, you are expressing your own irrationality and ignorance. You are just like the anti-vaccination fanatics who express "doubts" about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
