Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Alan Smith

Quote

Nuclear chemistry is the subdiscipline of chemistry that is concerned with changes in the nucleus of elements.

Glenn Seaborg and John Huizenga were important nuclear chemists.

Quote from Shane D.

kirkshanahan wrote:
Oh, and Kidwell's claims are very credible.

Kirk,

Kidwell is a believer in LENR though, as his being awarded a recent patent for excess heat proves. So if you felt he was "credible" when he took after Iwamura back then, is he still credible now?

Display More

Shane,
I have communicated with Kidwell and know he thinks there is something worth investigating, and I know he filed and got some patents, but I haven't investigated his claims and their support in detail. I looked briefly at his patent for excess enthalpy from small particles on supports today and have some questions I'd like answered. But we all know patents never have enough scientific info in them, so no surprise. I apply the same standards to Kidwell's work as anyone else's, the first being reproducibility. So, are his enthalpy claims credible? I don't know right now. In the quote above I was speaking of his finding wild Pr in Iwamura's lab, and the fallout of that. He has that story correct.

Alan Smith

I would be interested to know who in this forum can query the official nuclear databases. We could compare our professional experience on real scientific basis. All nuclear reactions are archived in databases. At present (5 May, 2016) they are 21258.

Quote from IH Fanboy

You seem to have little understanding of the way things work in the states. The executive branch, and particularly career military officials, [...] They view congress members almost as pests.

I don't know how the things go in the US, but all you said sounds quite realistic and plausible to me.

Quote

To think that a committee of congressional representatives hold influence over military men to divulge their LENR knowledge and secrets is laughable.

This is not as much plausible, and not at all laughable. The request has been presented in an official way in a foremost seat of a democracy. The texts of both the query and the briefing will be archived and kept for future evaluations. It's a damn serious circumstance.

We should also take into account, that the request has been formally presented to the Secretary of Defense (SoD), not to the military. He represents the US Gov, the executive political power voted by the citizens. The subject is of utmost importance for everyone and for each single aspect of the federal administration, it deals with energy and a presumed way to substitute the present sources. The SoD can't underestimate its importance, and, I presume, it is his duty to gather all the possible and truthful information from his Department.

Moreover, in preparing the briefing, he cannot ignore to be in front of one of the most important myths of the present civilization: the possibility to harness the nuclear fusion for civil scope. He and his advisers know which are the relationships between modern myths and the present situation of the world economy and equilibrium. He, and the military, are also in the best position to be aware of the consequences of keeping this myth alive, or dismantle it. Both consequences are painful, sooner or later. It's a tough choice. But the House Committee on Armed Service has chosen a date for this to happen, and there will be no other opportunities like this.

Quote

They will simply refuse to answer questions under the guise of national security.

Of course the SoD, after having gathered the required information, can later decide which ones, if any, should be kept secret, but this will be done in front of the public opinion, and will raise much more questions than the original ones. In particular, such secrecy would appear quite unjustified being most of the request based on an old "unclassified" document (1), so that one could wonder why in 2009 it was decided to divulge worldwide some information that look to be very sensitive for the national security, and 7 years later, after the appearance on the web of so many facts and rumors about the possible involvement of some military in the Ecat affair, the same subject is kept secret.

Quote

In fact, I would be very surprised if anything useful came of these hearings.

I am, instead, very surprised by your behavior. I'd have thought that anyone really convinced that LENR is real, and able to solve the energetic problems of the planet, and that the US military know how to exploit it, should held his breath waiting the briefing. I also believed that many users of this forum would have taken this historic and unique occasion to express what they would like to know from the briefing of the US Secretary of Defense, and would have prepared a list of wishful questions, just in case, or, at least, to see how far the actual answers would have matched the expected ones.

On the contrary, at almost two months from the event, no one here manifests any interest in it. It's really strange.

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…9/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

Quote from Ascoli65

I am, instead, very surprised by your behavior. I'd have thought that anyone really convinced that LENR is real, and able to solve the energetic problems of the planet, and that the US military know how to exploit it, should held his breath waiting the briefing. I also believed that many users of this forum would have taken this historic and unique occasion to express what they would like to know from the briefing of the US Secretary of Defense, and would have prepared a list of wishful questions, just in case, or, at least, to see how far the actual answers would have matched the expected ones.

On the contrary, at almost two months from the event, no one here manifests any interest in it. It's really strange.

It is because, I would venture to guess, that most participants on this forum are Americans. And we have a fairly good understanding of how politics work in this country. I believe there will be few, if any, revelations of import for the public as a result of these hearings. Of course, I could be wrong. But I simply don't see any advantage the U.S. military would obtain by revealing anything they know about LENR to the general public. More likely, they will use this opportunity for counter-intelligence purposes.

'oystla' wrote in 'https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-“Looks-Like-it-Worked”/?postID=28963#post28963'

First experimenters stumbled on an energy anomalie [anomaly]. - OK...true.

Then by careful analysis chemical sources where discarded. - False, analysis was not careful...conclusion drawn is incorrect.

What's left is a nuclear reaction. - Typical if A and B, then C. But it is NOT B, therefore it goes If A and not B, then not C.

But the excact mechanism is yet to be agreed upon, - and never will because there isn't one...

among the dusins [dozens] of theories proposed. - Funny how many theories can be proposed based on nothing isn't it?

When science has agreed upon the theory, you will find reports in your precious nuclear databases. - but no theory will ever be chosen (except one using mundane chemistry), so nothing will end up in the database...

Quote from Ascoli65

...
I also believed that many users of this forum would have taken this historic and unique occasion to express what they would like to know from the briefing of the US Secretary of Defense, and would have prepared a list of wishful questions, just in case, or, at least, to see how far the actual answers would have matched the expected ones.

On the contrary, at almost two months from the event, no one here manifests any interest in it. It's really strange. ...

Ascoli65,
I agree with you on the importance of this occasion to shed some light on the whole LENR-CF issue, and I do share your amazement for the (apparent?) general lack of interest.
I'm sorry I can not support your effort, also because of the language barrier; Google Translator helps but that's not enough.
The 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.
Or, not answering could also be a diplomatic way to make it clear that the question is meaningless in the view of the respondents.

Regards.

GB

CAM,

It's 23 years since my days at the University, so I may have forgotten the excact definition. But I was not far off when saying radioactivity. This is the definition from ACS:
"
Nuclear chemists work with various isotopic forms of elements to study fission and fusion processes, or they delve into the effects of ionizing radiation on materials, living organisms (including people), and the environment."

Quote from cam

The real problem is that JR's library and IAEA database do not meet.

It is not my database. As I noted, it comes from the library at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. You are saying that the IAEA database does not include papers from Los Alamos. That is possible, but it does not mean that the papers from Los Alamos have no merit.

Anyway, trying to decide whether a paper has scientific merit by looking at the library you find it, rather than examining the content, is not scientific. Frankly, that's a nutty thing to do. It is an arbitrary and meaningless metric. It like voting for a candidate because his name has the most letters in it.

@Jed Rothwell

Quote

As I noted, it comes from the library at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Edmund Storms, I know. But:
The Los Alamos National Laboratory has ended its efforts to collaborate with scientists at the University of Utah on cold fusion
research, delivering a damning blow to the university's claim to have achieved fusion in a flask.
Not only Edmund Storms, but also F. Celani, INFN; V. Violante, ENEA; G. Levi, University of Bologna; Pam Mosier-Boss, SPAWAR and so on.
Cold fusion has been pursued for many years by scientist who worked in important public institutions. That's why it so difficult to separate their cold fusion claims from the institutions they worked in. The only way is to trace them in international databases. They all are unknown characters.

Alan Smith

Quote

When we have a good workhorse that can trot on command is IMHO the real time to start worrying about theories.

EXFOR means Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data.
Experimental data are above all. Excitation functions can only be drawn from experiments.

Alan Smith

Quote

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?

Quote from cam

All nuclear reactions are archived in databases.

Tja cam: It seems that IAEA has missed a lot since 1989, or more clearly. This institution is obviously incompetent to catch up with current science!

Quote from cam

The only way is to trace them in international databases. They all are unknown characters

For that, I completely agree with Your incompetence. Fleischmann and Pons were completely unknown at their time. Only provincial chemistry students (like myself) read their books...That might be the reason that they never reached the high level of your enlightenment.

Wyttie - As usual, you don't have your facts in the right bucket. Martin Fleischmann was a world-renowned electrochemist when they made their announcement in 1989.

Dewey, I think Wyttenbach is being sarcastic.

Quote from cam

As I noted, it comes from the library at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Edmund Storms, I know. But:
The Los Alamos National Laboratory has ended its efforts to collaborate with scientists at the University of Utah on cold fusion
research, delivering a damning blow to the university's claim to have achieved fusion in a flask.

I am talking about 1,200 of the papers in the LENR-CANR.org bibliography. They came from the library at Los Alamos. You cited the lack of paper in your library as proof that cold fusion does not exist. I see you, and raise you by papers at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. In point of fact, I expect that if you look for some of these papers in your library, you will find them.

But you are missing the larger point. Science is not a popularity contest. It is not decided by where you find a paper. It is decided by what the paper says, and whether the experiment has been widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio. Cold fusion has been widely replicated. Therefore it is real. There is no other standard of truth in science. There are no other criteria. It makes no difference who agrees or where the results are published, what library you find them in, or even whether they are never published at all. The experiment is the ONE AND ONLY THING that counts. Science is based entirely on experiments (or observations in things like natural science and astronomy, where experiments are not possible). Nature is the one and only standard of truth. That's all there is to it. You are trying to substitute a library for nature, and the judgement of a librarian for objectively proven facts. That's not science; that's debased religion.

I find Cam's crusade quite interesting.

His primary focus is debunking cold fusion, with the aim of preventing useless public spending, whereas he is quite tolerant of Rossi's hocus pocus devices, which drain no public funds while emptying the pockets of clueless investors (which serves them right for not doing their homework).

This makes him everybody's enemy here, on both pro and anti-Rossi sides.

Cam is well known among us Italian followers of the Rossi saga. He hosts a blog (that I will not link since he may not wish to publicize it and disclose his full name) where he can count on a majority of cheerleaders applauding every post of his (though at times his dogmatic attitude gets on people's nerves even among the community of skeptics).
This new venture, one-against-all Kung-fu style, appears to motivate him quite a bit.

This is much much better than TV series, perfect for killing time while waiting for the ERV report and court hearings.

@Jed Rothwell

Quote

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.

Quote

In point of fact, I expect that if you look for some of these papers in your library, you will find them.

I am not interested in libraries, but only in databases. Databases give you stuff like this one referred to Focardi's reaction. Look at the time, I have just downloaded this diagram for you. It is quite easy getting useful stuff from databases... which are not libraries. You a librarian, EXFOR is a database, do you see the difference?