Can we talk about Holmlid?

1st Official Post

    ok I know all the history, have been following been following this field for years..


    My question is about Homlid. His work stands is stark contrast to everything else done since Pons&Fleischman. The implication is that he has a direct path to creating a state of matter that only exists in rare and sporadic form in all the endless metallic core shake and bake experiments.


    I would add that I exchanged emails with Dr. Olafsson in 2013 at which time he was setting out to duplicate in his own laboratory the published experiments done by Dr. Homlid. Now 3 years later Dr. Olafsson clearly sees enough potential to continue this work.


    I suppose it's a matter of bandwidth and money, but it seems possible that all the 'solid matter' experiments ( where a metallic core are somehow treated ) are essentially a dead end.


    S

    Holmlid et al. still use a commercially available material (an industrial porous catalyst) for the production of this new state of matter that they call Rydberg matter (or ultra-dense hydrogen in a more "advanced" form). But if a new state of matter is the responsible for many or most of the observed effects observed in the LENR field so far then it is possible that there may be other ways for producing it. According to some, one of such possible methods is cavitation in liquids.



    Speaking of Holmlid I do not think that the idea of using a nanostructured catalyst is so different than that of other LENR experimenters. The difference is probably that few people have thought of using a ready made catalyst composed of something different than palladium, nickel or other pure metals.

    Quote from redacted

    ok I know all the history, have been following been following this field for years..


    My question is about Homlid. His work stands is stark contrast to everything else done since Pons&Fleischman. The implication is that he has a direct path to…


    So, what is your question?


    Please, keep in mind that Prof. Em. Holmlid seems to have a cooperation with Bernhart Kotzias, who currently is employed by Airbus Defense & Space (according to some recent publications, see https://www.linkedin.com/group…32340-6132874986727231489, or if you don't have a LinkedIn account: http://scitation.aip.org/conte…dva/6/4/10.1063/1.4947276)

    Ug. It seems to happen to me once a day or so that I lose a response. Most site software will warn when one is about to abandon an edit. Any wild click can dump the edit window, and it's gone. The site also commonly logs me out when I'm away from the computer for a bit, losing any open edit windows. It logs me out and log-in is difficult. I pretty much have to actually log out and close those windows to recover. More sophisticated software automatically saves edits to a draft. It's waiting when I come back. Lenr-form has no provision for draft responses. Publish the response or it's toast.


    I wrote that Holmlid has not been confirmed independently, and I looked at the implications. I also cited a recent response to Holmlid, and Holmlid's reply was rejected by the journal of his original publication. That's not a good sign.


    Int. J. Mass Spec. 399-400 (2016) 51-52
    http://physics.gu.se/~klavs/papers/HolmlidComment.pdf


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.00744.pdf is Holmlid's response from arXiv, stating that it was rejected. No reason for rejection was stated, it seems likely that there was one given. It is normal in cold fusion papers, since the Bad Old Days of just a couple of years starting in 1989, that authors are given a right of response to critiques. So this stands out. That may or may not be meaningful.


    This was about
    [1] L. Holmlid, Int. J. Mass Spec. 352 (2013) 1 -- the original paper, then cited in
    [2] L. Holmlid, AIP Advances 5 (2015) 087129


    So it was three years before any critique arrived? Is this true? I asked Holmlid about the issue. He was unconcerned. He just does his work. However, what he is created is a mass of interpretation based on prior interpretations of evidence that has never undergone serious independent examination. There is, by the way, a lot of work like that in the LENR field.


    Coming in out of the cold will require developing regular and serious expert critique. There is only a little of this, such as the Vysotskii and Hagelstein critiques of the theory. I was going to show Krivit's presentation of this (Vysotskii), but ... it now seems to be missing. It is not where I'd expect to find it.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml


    Notice that the Hagelstein response is shown, but deprecated. Why? Well, Hagelstein was published in a journal. Widom and Larsen responded with something that the journal probably rejected, it was published on arXiv. Hagelstein allegedly did not respond. That gives Krivit an excuse, perhaps. He does the same thing with Ciuchi's critique.


    It's obvious that Krivit is favoring W-L theory -- which is not at all widely accepted any more -- in his presentation, making it look overwhelmingly accepted.


    Krivit continues to present the Garwin comment in a misleading way, turning an obvious criticism into an apparent lack of objection.

    Quote

    Richard Garwin (Nuclear physicist, key participant in the Manhattan Project and designer of the first hydrogen bomb) - 2007: “…I didn’t say it was wrong.”


    The link is to reporting from Krivit before he started to flog W-L theory. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…rwinWidomLarsenThread.pdf


    What is missing is
    Infinite Energy, http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue105/
    "Critique of the Widom-Larsen Theory" Vladimir I. Vysotskii


    Krivit hosts a copy of the paper with an added comment at the top.
    http://www.newenergytimes.com/…iqu-WidomLarsenTheory.pdf


    The excuse is nonsense. The mention of Rossi results was dicta, something commonly accepted for a time as plausible. This is actually an example of Krivit being totally intolerant of any criticism of W-l theory, finding any possible excuse to deprecate it, while putting up every off-hand comment from anyone that might seem to be positive. He could not do that with the journal publications (so he merely deprecated their citation) but Infinite Energy is not a peer-reviewed journal. Nor is arXiv, for that matter.


    "Unable to provide any citation" is Krivit-speak for "Did not respond to my demands." Krivit showed signs of imbalance early on, but, after all, for people to stand up to a "mainstream consensus" took being a bit ... unusual ..., so it was tolerated by some. Not by others (such as Swartz and Josephson, nor one of his Board members who resigned at his request, after a very mild critique of Krivit's behavior, nor, as it developed, by me, when I started writing about what had become obvious.) In fact, it would have been easy for Vysotskii to respond; this was not a journal article and there was plenty of informal material from scientists, such as the Kullander and Essen report. By this time, most scientists had decided not to respond to him. That is then used by him as proof that they are wrong and involved in a conspiracy to Suppress the Truth. His truth.


    Now, the response to W-L theory developed because of the wide attention it was getting. Theory is, in my view, not a major and very important part of LENR research yet. What must be established first is what Alain has termed "phenomenological theory" as distinct from theory of mechanism. This is basically organization of experimental evidence, with focus on what is confirmed. "The FPHE is a result of the conversion of deuterium to helium with no major radiation" is a phenomenological theory, making clear predictions and readily tested. Theories of mechanism, for the most part, at this point, are not so easy to test! There is always some ad hoc explanation possible.


    An obvious consequence of W-L theory would be neutron-activation gammas. Not observed. So, presto! A gamma shield, caused by the same "heavy electrons" that supposedly allow the formation of neutrons. However, a gamma shield should be easy to test for. Ever done? ("Proprietary," is Larsen's answer). But later, Larsen wrote, and Krivit wrote, that the gamma shield would not be detectable because it is transient, like the sparkles in that SPAWAR IR video. Two problems with this: it would still be detectable, by using edge-on gamma imagine which would "see" an shields anywhere along the surface, and ... if transient, it could not suppress the activation gammas, which are delayed by the half-life of the excited nuclei. That activity would go on for days or sometimes longer.


    Has Larsen ever responded to this? Not publicly, to my knowledge, and I don't reveal what is on the private CMNS list (though Krivit does. Has he ever reported on Larsen's comments there? No. He only reveals private correspondence that serves his agenda). Okay. so I just revealed that Larsen has commented there, but ... with no information as to the nature of the comment. I'd love to, but won't.


    Larsen and Krivit's public response on the gamma shield issue, though, was probably based on my criticism on the private list. There is a lot of critique on that list, there are raging debates. Which is healthy. However, formal critique must show up in public and private debate should be only preliminary and informal, as it is.


    Holmlid, bottom line, is not confirmed. He is supported by Olafsson, that's about it. I have not made an exhaustive search, and if someone wants to learn something, become an expert on what Holmlid has published, by studying it. That is useful, if you avoid becoming a "believer," but coming up with operating conclusions is okay. A few month's work at this could make you one of the few people on the planet who knows what Holmlid has actually found, what the criticisms are, to the extent that the work has been criticized, and the state of the research, excepting only Holmlid and probably Olafsson. Consider that fun, for someone so inclined.


    One more thing I just noticed. From the Holmlid answer to Hansen: "I want to thank Sveinn Olafsson for making me aware that Ref. [1] existed "


    Ref. 1 is the Hansen critique, published. It would be very odd that a journal would not tell an author that they are considering publishing a critique, and not give them an opportunity to reply before publication. Something is off there. Perhaps the journal emailed him and got no response. Or perhaps the Cabal was involved. In 2016? Again, someone interested could investigate, could ask Holmlid and the journal editors.


    I do see a problem with Holmlid's response and wrote about it, but that is what was lost and I need to move on to other topics today. Maybe someone else will see it. The advance of science is a collective effort.

    @gameover - Yes there would be other ways of producing the ultra-dense hydrogen or deuterium D(-1) such as in classic LENR or cavitation, but in every one of those other techniques the D(-1) is created indirectly through poorly understood mechanisms deep inside of some other material ( i.e. metallic or liquid ) with no way to isolate or concentrate it. Homlid describes creating 'pure' D(-1) which behaves as a superfuid at unremarkable temperatures and pressures, so this is a huge difference.


    @robwoudenberg - I have 2 questions.
    1. Why isn't there more interest in this in the replication community? It is different than what has come before, but would appear a much more tractable research problem than the LENR experiments.
    2. If you did have some amount of D(-1), would this pose a "proliferation risk", i.e. the weaponization of such a material is an unpleasant thought


    thx,
    S

    In my theory the cold fusion is based on low-dimensional collisions. Prof. Holmlid is using them too via lowdimensional laser beam - but he uses the energy density, which is common for tocamak fusion. As the result, his energy density is even higher than this one used in tokamak or NIF, so it leads into fragmentation of products of fusion, i.e. waste of energy. So it's not cold fusion at all - in certain aspects it gets even hotter, than the mainstream hot fusion. You should therefore not extrapolate very much about cold fusion from Holmlid's experiments, as AxilAxil is often trying to do here.

    Quote from redacted

    Rob Woudenberg - I have 2 questions.
    1. Why isn't there more interest in this in the replication community? It is different than what has come before, but would appear a much more tractable research problem than the LENR experiments.
    2. If you did have some amount of D(-1), would this pose a "proliferation risk", i.e. the weaponization of such a material is an unpleasant thought


    My thoughts:
    1. Holmlid's detectors + processing electronics are not simple, cheap, devices and in addition he uses types of lasers that aren't cheap either.
    2. (actually not a question): Holmlid's papers have conflicting data on the lifetime of UDD and UDH as far as I observed. Short lifetime of UDH or UDD could complicate replication. But if lifetime isn't a problem, UDD or UDH could be part of weapons, which indeed is a rather unpleasant thought.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Ug. It seems to happen to me once a day or so that I lose a response. Most site software will warn when one is about to abandon an edit. Any wild click can dump the edit window, and it's gone. The site also commonly logs me out when I'm away from the…


    I found the Krivit mention of Vysotskii. It is on an outrageously organized list of papers, selected by Krivit for importance. At the end of this list -- which includes many major papers in LENR -- there is this:


    Quote

    Attempts by "Cold Fusion" Proponents to Discredit Work That Conflicts with The Hypothesis of "Cold Fusion" (Source: New Energy Times)
    Speculations for the Non-Existence of Energetic Alpha Particles in LENR
    Hagelstein, Peter L., "Constraints on Energetic Particles in the Fleischmann–Pons Experiment, "Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-009-0644-4, Feb. 9, 2010


    Vladimir I. Vysotskii, "Critique of the Widom-Larsen Theory," Infinite Energy, 2012
    [Ed: On request from New Energy Times in 2012 , Vysotskii was unable to provide any scientific reference to support his assertion of "important Rossi-Focardi experimental results." This paper, therefore, has no factual basis and is presented as an example of unscientific skepticism.]


    The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations, by Edmund Storms, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 9-8127062-0-8, (July 2007)


    Krivit does not understand the science. He does not understand the "hypothesis of cold fusion" as it actually exists, he misrepresents it routinely.


    The Hagelstein paper is not well-described as "speculation." It is indeed based on well-known nuclear theory, and it sets an upper bound for the energy of charged particles in the FP experiment. It's about 20 keV, because above that energy, there would be observable secondary reactions, well-known. The "Hagelstein limit" is a damned nuisance for anyone proposing "d-d fusion," unless they include something that suppresses the expected radiation. It does not, to my knowledge, conflict with W-L theory, which does not predict charged particle radiation. So why is Krivit attacking this? Well, Hagelstein is a theorist who is looking at some fusion possibilities, predicting that the energy is dissipated by phonons. This paper, however, is general, not focused on his own theory at all. Rather, this is Krivit going after an "enemy," because Hagelstein wrote a critique of W-L theory, also published in a journal. This publication in Naturwissenschaften was a major event, a major journal article that assumes the reality of the FP Heat Effect.


    Then there is the Vysotskii critique. Not a journal article at all, a magazine article, in Infinite Energy. Krivit's beef with that article is, on the face of it, that it mentions Rossi results, but Vysotskii refused to confirm his "claim" when Krivit asked him about it. In fact, by this time, most scientists had stopped responding to Krivit. So non-response is normal. We can notice that IH apparently stopped responding to him, and, in fact, may never have responded to him. They sent him the "press release" in early March, 2016, that they sent to others and he imagines that it was due to his comments or questions. Maybe. Probably not. Krivit has been visible as what he is for many years, now.


    What had Vyotskii actually claimed?


    Quote

    "Theoretical explanation of important Rossi-Focardi experimental results are often associated with Widom-Larsen theory."


    This was the occasion for doing his study. The study does not assume those results. The analysis is general, mathematical, theoretical. Krivit would not be able to understand it. But he sure understands "important Ross--Focardi experimental results." Fraud!!! However, the paper is about metal hydrides in general, and the application of W-L theory to "R-F" experiments, which is a class of experiments with nickel hydride. He's simply saying that W-L theory does not explain the (alleged) results. The analysis is, however, general, about any metal hydrides, and specifically about W-L concepts. This is intolerable to Krivit, so he has to find a reason to attack it and deprecate it as"unscientific skepticism."


    However, Vysotskii is a specific analysis of theory from an actual scientist (with extensive credentials), here deprecated by someone who has shown, over and over, his severe lack of understanding of basic scientific issues. Krivit's theme is "ME." He presents his work as the most important work in the history of cold fusion. Look at that page! He still pretends to be a journalist, I think. No journalist would do this.


    And then he has the Storms 2007 book on that list. This is, by far, the best and most thorough book on its title: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Academically published, it is magnificent, even if he makes a few mistakes (which is nearly unavoidable in a work this size). It will be dated and somewhat obsolete in a few years, but ... for now, it is by far the most useful book on the topic. It has a section titled "Explanations, the Hopes and Dreams of Theoreticians." This chapter does not cover W-L theory, which was new at the time. It is, however, covered briefly as an explanation of "neutron induced transmutation." They appear to describe the theory fairly, noting the "hurdles" which neutron creation models have to face. They do not reject the theory, but simply describe some difficulties. For example, the gamma shield may not have yet been proposed, or Storms didn't notice it.


    This book is not at all well-categorized by Krivit's accusations.


    Krivit is a loose cannon, and that such are sometimes tolerated in the field is a sign of immaturity. Yes. People have a right to idiosyncratic opinions. But Krivit (and some others) go well beyond "skepticism" into full on attack, which is easily recognized as agenda-driven pseudoskepticism.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Forum Software Grumbles.


    Hi Abd. This site never seems to log me out - even when switching from desktop to laptop. And the only posts I have lost have been lost by me doing something stupid. I suspect that you may have a cookie problem, or a twitchy firewall.

    I'm using Chrome. I doubt there is a firewall problem. I have not confirmed that I have the same problem with Firefox. However, "doing something stupid," when one is writing and researching, going to many different web sites, not just blabbing of the top of my head, happens all the time. There are some keyboard weirdnesses that I have never tracked down. Basically, stuff happens and it looks like I might have hit some key combination, maybe pressed Ctrl instead of Shift, whatever. Most programs and many web site will not let me close a program or drop the connection without warning me that I might lose data. And as I mentioned, some sites store and present drafts. That's easily possible if the draft is communicated as being written. Quora does this.


    Autologout appears to often occur after a few hours, I get a popup message that I'm logged out, I must log in again. But I'm using Facebook log in, it is automatic when I look at the Forum. The message says to log in, but there is no log-in link. I dismiss the message and if I'm quick, I can get a response from my Profile button before the message pops up again. It displays a logout link. So I can log out. However, if I log in and go to one of the open windows, the message pops up again. so I have to close all the site windows, which has confused the Unread Messages usage. I'm pretty sure that the software thinks I've read a message if I loaded a link to it.


    My browser might be contributing to the problem. If I have a lot of windows open, it might decide to "close" the window, assuming that the page can just be downloaded again, i.e., it doesn't know that I have content in a buffer. This happens to me quite frequently. Some sites don't maintain constant update, like Quora does, but update drafts every few minutes. Yahoomail is like that.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Autologout appears to often occur after a few hours, I get a popup message that I'm logged out, I must log in again.


    I see that as well, using my Google account for logging in. After several hours, try to go to a page that is open in a browser tab, and you get a popup message that says something to the effect of the session being expired. At that point I can't click on the page, even to get to the login screen, and must edit part of the url. Another thing that happens is that the software only allows a login from one browser; if I log in from my mobile phone, it will log me out from my computer, and vice versa. Needless to say, this forum software is not cutting edge; it reminds me a little of Bugzilla or Craigslist, which were not impressive even in the 1990's.


    The immediate solution is to save off drafts of something you're writing into a text editor if you think the session might expire.

    Quote


    This does not demonstrate error. In fact, what it shows is entirely unclear. I can say the impression this creates in me: there is unidentified artifact here. That is just an impression. It's not proven, but that this is reported without a major effort to identify and characterize the reported effect blows my credulity fuses, like much of Holmlid's work. He has built a structure of papers and theories built on earlier papers and theories, isolated from the mainstream, but he is able to get them published. What then?


    Others are not, for the most part, critiquing his work. Holmlid is not showing signs of intense search for artifact, which is completely necessary when reporting new work outside of normal expectations. He gives explanations for his results that have not been extensively tested and confirmed, and is building a universe of theory based on this.


    I know what that can do, I've seen some very bright people go down from this. it's exciting. One is creating new realms of science! However, science is a social enterprise, as an individual enterprise it is quite limited.


    I am not denying Holmlid's findings. My concern is largely the sociology of science, and that Holmlid is being extensively published but not confirmed or disconfirmed is a clear sign of social pathology. To be effective, this would probably need to go back to his earlier work, to examine the foundations.


    It is possible that a careful study of this work would come up with clear experimental explorations to answer basic questions, definitively. Because of the implications, if that is done, I think funding could be found for experimental testing of his findings.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Holmlid, bottom line, is not confirmed. He is supported by Olafsson, that's about it. I have not made an exhaustive search, and if someone wants to learn something, become an expert on what Holmlid has published, by studying it. That is useful, if you avoid becoming a "believer," but coming up with operating conclusions is okay. A few month's work at this could make you one of the few people on the planet who knows what Holmlid has actually found, what the criticisms are, to the extent that the work has been criticized, and the state of the research, excepting only Holmlid and probably Olafsson. Consider that fun, for someone so inclined.


    Yes, this is my general impression of Holmlid. He's followed a rabbit down a hole of his own making, interpreting experimental results using the same kind of etherial logic that got Ed Storms to his theory of Hydrotons. I tried reading some of Holmlid's papers one time and was left with several impressions (echoing similar ones that others have discussed in different forums): (1) his papers cite his earlier papers quite a bit, suggesting he's in some kind of self-referential niche area that hasn't been significantly vetted by other researchers who are independent of him (i.e., people who are not post docs and graduate students in his group); (2) his experimental discussions are so thoroughly interwoven with his theoretical conclusions that it's very hard to discern what actually was seen in the experiments, in terms of low level observations; (3) what low-level observations one is able to tease out of those reports could possibly be explained by other things, possibly LENR; (4) his reports of charged particle currents make use of a custom-built spectrometer that, as far as I can tell, is because of its design impossible to calibrate against sources of charged particles of known energy and mass (e.g., Americium), and he had as of the time of the papers I was looking at not yet engaged someone with significant experience doing spectroscopy and was doing it all within his own group. There was a fifth impression as well: (5) he was not an objective reporter of what he was seeing, and to get to the truth of the matter someone else who was more independent would need to take a hard look at the body of work.


    I continue to take interest in Holmlid's experimental observations and would also like someone objective and level-headed to familiarize himself with his work and relate it to other work outside of LENR or Rydberg matter. I'd also be interested in seeing someone with expertise in characterizing charged particle currents to independently report on what's going in in Holmlid's setup. My guess: Rydberg matter, and ultra-dense deuterium, will not be in the conclusion, except as possibilities to be mentioned and ruled out in favor of more plausible explanations.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    (4) his reports of charged particle currents make use of a custom-built spectrometer that, as far as I can tell, is because of its design impossible to calibrate against sources of charged particles of known energy and mass (e.g., Americium), and he had as of the time of the papers I was looking at not yet engaged someone with significant experience doing spectroscopy and was doing it all within his own group.


    In Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0) (dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116) Holmlid and Olafsson detect different spectra at 3 meters of distance from their reactor using a custom plastic scintillator (PS) - photo multiplier (PMT) combo, plus optionally signal filters of various kinds between the PS and the PMT. Did you refer to this?

    Holmlid and his associates: Miley and Hora want to produce hot fusion from condensed hydrogen using lasers. Holmlid does understand that muons might form the basis of the LENR reaction but Holmlid does not want to fight the LENR wars himself. Holmlid wants to retain his scientific credentials and would rather see someone else endure the abuse that Rossi is currently enduring. The CERN people Holmlid collaborates with cannot accept that muons can be produced using chemicals. This also is true with all the LENR community. No LENR experimenters test for muons, LookingForHeat does not stock muon detectors, there just is no market for them, and they even sell few radiation detectors as it is.


    But on the bright side, as of late, MFMP has gotten out from under the H- theory(a muon stand in) of Piantelli and now understands that Muons might play a central role in LENR.

    Quote from gameover

    In Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0) (dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116) Holmlid and Olafsson detect different spectra at 3 meters of distance from their reactor using a custom plastic scintillator (PS) - photo multiplier (PMT) combo, plus optionally signal filters of various kinds between the PS and the PMT. Did you refer to this?


    Perhaps — not completely sure. This paper is later than the ones I looked at. What I was referring to is alluded to in the abstract: "Laser-induced emission of neutral particles with time-of-flight energies of 1e30 MeV u 1 was previously reported in the same system." (In addition to neutral particles, I recall charged particles.) The apparatus in this paper looks similar, although I don't recall a photomultiplier tube being used in earlier cases.


    Perhaps they could calibrate this setup by bending the charged particle current that is induced by the laser under a magnetic field, and comparing the counts to those for radioactive sources under various strengths of magnetic field. This type of calibration and investigation is subtle and should done by someone who does this kind of procedure on a regular basis. This could obviously only be done with charged particles. I don't recall much about Holmlid's claims pertaining to neutral particles.

    I have just explained in this post how metalized hydrides are protected from the application of external energy of any strength level. This will greatly disappoint Holmlid et al in their plans to generate hot fusion from metalized hydrides using lasers.


    DTRA: Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Mosier Boss, L. Forsley, PK. McDaniel


    These crystals are perpetrators of Fusion and not victims of it. No matter how much laser energy that these hydrides are exposed to, those photons will not be allowed into the crystal. Hole superconductivity will not let photons pass through the magnetic coating. This might be an example of how correct theory can save the experimenters a lot of time and effort.

    Quote from axil

    This might be an example of how correct theory can save the experimenters a lot of time and effort.


    If you have correct theory, who needs experiment? What, indeed, is the goal of experiment?


    There are two kinds and the goals are quite different. One kind is looking for anomalies, exploring, testing lots of stuff, and certainly Holmlid has done a lot of this. I call this exploratory, and it can be useful. But it does not create scientific knowledge, it creates things to be investigated and ideas to be tested.


    The second kind is more commonly what is called "scientific experiment," using the "scientific method." It is two-fold, again. One part is the confirmation of what others have found. The "test" here is simply to see if a report can be confirmed. The goal of this is to repeat an experiment, and, if possible, find the same or comparable results. The goal here is not to prove the original report wrong; if it is, this can badly contaminate it. The goal is to repeat.


    Then there is exploration of the parameter space for the original experiment. This should generally be done after confirmation of the original report. McKubre has described the process, it starts with simply confirmation, because if there is no simple confirmation, all that has happened is that a mystery is created: conflict: original report says I did A and B happened. Replication failure says, we did A and B did not happen. Cool. These should be reported, my opinion, not suppressed, but never show original error. That can only be done, in fact, if the original experiment can actually be replicated.


    The exploration of the parameter space includes testing possible artifacts. If we control a particular variable, can we affect the result? Suppose we have a LENR report of transmutation. Can we create that effect by using a particular kind of seal, and does it go away when we change the seal to a functionally equivalent but different material. If we do this we may have identified an artifact, contamination.


    And then there are experiments designed to test theories. A theory predicts that if we X, we should see Y. Testing this is core to the development of useful theory.


    It's an error to think of theory as "correct" or "incorrect." It is useful or not. It can be useful even if "wrong," i.e., if it uses a model that is not reality. Like Ptolemaic astronomy. Very useful!


    Defective models will create anomalies. Anomalies show that our understanding is not complete.


    So .... how are we to use idea to use "correct theory"? Do we take it from the Textbook of Correct Theory? I know!! the kid says in his class, waving his hand, in front of Professor Axil.


    We take thorough notes in class and memorize them and use them for the rest of our lives.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    If you have correct theory, who needs experiment? What, indeed, is the goal of experiment?


    Lomax learned his science from Richard Feynman.


    Quote

    Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate. : Richard P. Feynman


    I lost all respect for Feynman when he pulled the plug on Joe Papp's engine and caused it to explode killing a few innocent bystanders. And even after the Papp engine was taken apart bolt by bolt in trial discovery and there was no explosives found, just bent metal, Feynman failed to recognize that Papp may have been telling the truth about nature. Feynman just paid his damages to Papp and keep up the facade of the great man of unsurpassed wisdom who know it all; truly, Lomax leaned his science from the great man: Feynman.

    Quote from axil

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    Lomax learned his science from Richard Feynman.


    I did, one of three major sources for me.


    Quote

    Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate. : Richard P. Feynman


    My ontology and training suggests that all these facile explanations are distractions from reality, and reality is God and God is reality. I agree with Feynman there. It seems inadequate, probably because it is inadequate, an immature story, a rationalization, and not actually salvific. What is salvific is full-on trust in reality, qua reality, not as our ideas about reality, and my whole life shows me this. I'd love to have had this conversation with Feynman.


    Quote

    I lost all respect for Feynman when he pulled the plug on Joe Papp's engine and caused it to explode killing a few innocent bystanders. And even after the Papp engine was taken apart bolt by bolt in trial discovery and there was no explosives found, just bent metal, Feynman failed to recognize that Papp may have been telling the truth about nature. Feynman just paid his damages to Papp and keep up the facade of the great man of unsurpassed wisdom who know it all; truly, Lomax leaned his science from the great man: Feynman.


    It was an error and tragic, if it happened. There is apparently some doubt. See http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html and then this story, purported to be by Feynman himself. It is not how I remembered the story, yet is there any other account as authoritative? http://hoaxes.org/comments/papparticle2.html


    Quote

    The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor. Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion:


    So the one who pulled the plug was not Feynman, it was Papp. Feynman hesitated to to give it back quickly, but then did. Papp obvious did not truly insist.


    Blaming Feynman for that explosion seems extreme. He could not have anticipated that, at all. There were others present, Feynman reports, who knew about the possibility of an explosion and behaved appropriately. If it is true that the explosion was caused by that removal of power, then the design was very badly flawed, because an unexpected removal of power is not an uncommon occurrence. Was Papp yelling at people to get away, it could explode? Apparently not. He became "frantic" but if I thought that Feynman's action could result in an explosion, were it me, I'd have grabbed that power cord, no argument or talk-talk, and I have yelled that it might explode. So Papp either planned the explosion, one theory, perhaps thinking it would be milder -- Feynman's idea, and he suggests plausible motive -- or at least Papp did not know it would explode. To them blame Feynman for what Papp did not anticipate and prevent, as the designer of the motor, is beyond the pale.


    Frankly, until now, I had a much stronger idea of Feynman having made a tragic error. As the inventor and organizer of that demonstration, and as the one who pulled the plug and then allowed Feynman to hold it and then keep it without clearly warning of danger, moral responsibility here was with Papp, not Feynman, in my book. Or it was simply an accident that Papp could not have anticipated. I also just noticed what Feynman reports Papp as having said, that the cord had "nothing to do with the engine," was just supplying power to the "instruments." No mention of control mechanisms. Thus no idea that control would be lost.


    Feynman never was "the great man of unsurpassed wisdom who knew it all." That isn't Feynman, it is a perverse and hostile fantasy that he'd think that or pretend to this. While some doubt that Feynman actually wrote that account, it does sound like Feynman, particularly in the human touches.


    It was one man killed, not "a few." There were some other injuries, serious. Feynman did not pay damages. According to the Feynman story, Caltech did. Maybe someone can find some better records, but people have tried and failed.


    I would not have been convinced by the explosion that the motor was showing a real effect. I have elsewhere written about the Papp motor, I consider it all an unsolved mystery, and it is possible that it will never be resolved. The transatlantic submarine is quite interesting, don't you think? Several aspects of the Papp story read like total madness. But then there are other aspects. Papp was insane, it's obvious. Sound familiar?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.